That's a very recent bit of knowledge, and one that was not available for most of history - yet we still didn't eat each other. Even the most ignorant and isolated peasants didn't do it. Try again. This time, think about empathy.
No, we don't eat humans because that is really unhealthy. Stuff like prions are problematic.
This is true - but we didn't know that until very recently. And it's not why we don't eat each other; resistance to doing that has been in place for longer than anyone remembers, free of knowledge or common experience with consequences to health. Free enough, in fact, that cannibalism keeps showing up in various forms, just as do other unhealthy but socially disfavored practices such as bloodline incest. There's been no inherent knowledge of the unhealthy nature of the act until someone actually engages in it, which, being very rare, hadn't been in the general knowledge base of the people until very recently.
Avoidance of cannibalism has been about empathy, primarily. For the victim, for the victim's relations. Knowledge about prions is, relatively speaking, a brand new factor. In one sense, it's good we know; in another, we don't have to, as cannibalism represents an obvious failure of empathy, a critical factor in healthy socialization, and the vast majority of people integrate the idea without needing a medical justification.
Also, just as an aside, there are plenty of red health flags WRT eating meat of other species. That should be sufficient to start up several relevant chains of thought that support what I've described here.
What's the point......when you have perfectly good animals that are already made out of food?
You're an animal. A perfectly good one. Made out of food. But we don't eat you. Why? Because we respect the life and potential and feelings you represent, and find the idea of causing you pain, or harm, or loss of life, to be repugnant.
Some of us extend that to other animals. Consequently, we don't want to eat those other animals any more than we want to eat you.
For us, "clean meat" as TFS has it, is very welcome.
As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs
FTFY:
As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the franchisees and shareholders will have more money to spend on reducing other segments of the job market, while customer costs continue to rise at the usual rate and employees go jobless.
The money flows upwards. Not downwards. The "trickle-down" theories are pure fancies; the facts have illuminated the actual reality, which isn't so much "trickle-up" as "cascade-up."
Anyone who thinks this is good for the traditional workforce in the existing economic structure is deluded. Anyone who doesn't think so but says it is... well, it's pretty obvious at this point.
Until / unless we change the fundamental nature of the economy to an automation-based, human supporting one, this kind of thing represents the tightening of the economic noose about the lowest level worker's necks. I submit that it is inevitable, given the drive for companies to always increase revenue, but it's damned painful and there is no additional compensating mechanism available. In fact, with the Republicans in charge at the moment, what compensating mechanism there was is under pressure to be significantly reduced in effectiveness.
People continue to sell contraband tobacco and moonshine,
Tobacco has an artificially high price; that creates a black market. The government causes this. Not legality of tobacco.
As far as moonshine goes, I know people make it - it's very inexpensive to do, not unlike growing your own pot - but I've never, ever come across any for sale. Likewise, I had home-made wine quite a few times back in the day, but never had anyone offer to sell me any, ever. My SO likes to drink more than I do, so it's not like we don't get exposed to drinking culture and habits. The "moonshine black market" you're suggesting simply doesn't exist on any noticeable scale.
In any case, these alcohol efforts are tiny little subcultures; the recreational drug market is huge. According to Forbes, the market for marijuana alone is more than seven billion dollars a year. That's not moonshine scale, not even close. And that's just pot. Moving drugs to a regulated, known dose, reasonably priced model would utterly destroy the black market. Tobacco is actually the poster child for pricing controls: when cigarettes were inexpensive, there was almost no black marketing. Once the price per pack was 90% add-on fees and taxes, of course a black market developed. Dealers could make 300% and more and still price at only a fraction of government-addled prices.
The problem with your idea is that most of the burdens are actually consequent to the drug war itself, not drugs.
The drug war created, and exacerbates, the black market and the violence that pervades it at every level. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the unknown dose problem. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the pricing problems. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the toxic mix problem. The drug war created, and exacerbates, a whole raft of horrible and grotesquely extended consequences to life, family, jobs. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the "forbidden fruit" attraction.
You want people to not interfere with society, then make that illegal. I'm all for it. Don't steal, don't kill, don't operate dangerous equipment high or we'll kick your ass. Sure. But if they're not interfering, you should leave them be. Some poor high idiot who is bothering no one should not be a legitimate target for government coercion. And it's very important to realize that most "bothering" is a consequence of the drug war. Not the cause of it.
Look. I don't drug, or drink intoxicating amounts - wine in spaghetti sauce is about my speed. That's been true for about 40 years now (I'm 60 ATOW.) I'm not particularly a fan of either modality these days, and find the world more than entertaining enough all on its own. But that doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to tell me, or anyone else, that I "must" act this way. And I have seen an immense amount of damage done by government in pursuit of the drug war. It needs to stop. It's beyond stupid, well into counterproductive, and toxic to society as all hell.
In the US, about 16 deaths a month (~200/year) occur because the roads are built such that wildlife can get on them. A collision with some form of wildlife occurs, on average, every 39 minutes. Is the government panicking about this? Are they doing anything significant about it? No (notable exception, Indiana... they have IR wildlife detection on some highways, or at least they did at one point, it's been a few years since I drove through there.) And generally speaking, they won't. Because they don't care about you, or risks to you, or your children. Also because doing so wouldn't pump enough money into enough people's pockets, unlike the drug war, which is a nearly bottomless moneypot for all manner of interests. Also because its a lot harder to scare moms with as compared to OMG DRUGZ.
Q: How do you protect yourself against a drug overdose or addiction? A: Don't take them, or, stop taking them.
Correcting the highways - protecting us - from our becoming victims of wildlife incursions, we need big money and big government. Because it's naturally pretty expensive, effort-intensive, and it's a serious problem.
Protecting ourself from drugs: We can do that ourselves, if we want to. If we don't want to, then we aren't being "protected" when we are interfered with... we're just being interfered with.
Liberty is, essentially as its fundamental character, that thing that that says we can do things that we are are informed about and which we personally, or consensually, choose to do; and that we are protected from others by the agreement that things we don't consent to, or are lacking understanding of, are not foisted off upon us against our will or by our lack of understanding.
Government's role is such protection is exemplified as education: striving to make the citizens reach an informed state about the world. It can also have a valid role in preventing non-consensual action, which ranges from being forced to do something, to running into an animal because they are not kept from the roadways as they should obviously be.
Please vote for people who will end the "war on drugs." It is the very antithesis of liberty. While you're at it, learn about drugs, and convey that information downstream to your kids and students and via any mentor relationships you may enjoy.
And throw some money at a low-IR camera for your vehicle. It could save your life. Because the government doesn't care to.
I've read this far, and my main conclusion is that people are more concerned with looks than function. AFAIAC, a car must incorporate these eight important things:
1: It needs to be reliable 2: It needs to be affordable to buy 3: It needs to be affordable to run 4: It needs to meet the cargo / passenger requirements 5: It needs to be comfortable 6: It needs to provide sufficient practical amenities 7: It needs to be safe 8: It needs to pollute as little as possible
You do realise that all this announcement means is that...
It appears it may mean that some or all 32-bit APIs may be going away. So that's somewhat of a serious concern for me as it would break Qt's OS interface. Of course, there's always the VM route, which I expect to keep working until/unless VMWARE goes away. Oh, and Parallels, too. And the others.
you won't be able to sell the 32 bit version of your app through the Apple app store.
I don't sell it, I give it away, and I have (and plan to have) no dealings whatsoever with Apple's app store. So no, not really a realization for me.:)
And honestly, building for 64 bit only allows you to jettison so much ancient cruft, you should be pleased. ARC and the non fragile ABI are worth it by themselves.
ARC: I manage my own memory. I have no need of ARC. I'm glad it's there for others in some versions of the OS, though. The problem I can't get around is that the OS itself leaks like a sieve. Still true as of 10.12. I always hope it'll be better with each new release, but not so far. If you want to unmask the worst cases of it, just turn off VM for a week and watch your memory consumption. Pretty sad.
My kernal_task is currently consuming 2.87 GB. By far the biggest wastrel. 14.52 GB of memory in use; except, no, it isn't. Also 9.25 GB cached, which, meh, I'm not too worried about performance boost caching, but some of that stuff hasn't been used in weeks. I'll have to reboot to clean it up, or fling purge at the system, which cleans up waaaay too much.
ABI: The problem here is that it means abandoning support for earlier OS's, and there's no actual reason to do that at this time. Particularly in that there is operating hardware in the field that Apple won't let run the new OS levels. Quite arbitrarily, too.
I will confess though... if Apple and the Qt people actually made a serious effort to clean up all the reported bugs instead of only the ones that have X>N reporters, they might be able to tempt me into a new build using the latest and greatest.
Unfortunately, both of them are a lot more interested in "shiny" than they are in "works like we claimed it works." They both habitually leave broken software systems unrepaired, while leaping into the future with the New Shiny. And besides... if they did fix all those bugs, I expect I'd get the benefit without building anew. The reason I say that is that builds that are 100% under Windows are less so under OS X. It seems very likely indeed that the problem is specific to OS X, especially considering how badly the OS leaks for pretty much everything app it runs. Including itself.
nobody was going to target new applications to it anyway, regardless of Apple removing 32 bit support.
Wrong. I do. I build my SDR app - which is a very complex thing - for 10.6.8 and up, and XP and up, is tested on all subsequent releases of both OSX and Windows, and (among other CPUs) on core 2 duo machines prior to release level issuance. It takes awhile, but mostly its rote testing using only slightly updated test suites, since I am long past requiring new OS calls.
Unless you actually need something from a later OS or CPU, there's no particular reason to target said CPU specifically, or to artificially inconvenience or lock out users of earlier hardware/OS (as Apple has done... the "Sierra won't run on these machines" business has been shown to be an artificial limit by software patches around the "oh no you don't" code that enables it to run just fine.)
In my case, a C2D provides (just barely) enough horsepower to run my app. Since it can, I see to it that it will. Further, since I have a 17" C2D macbook pro that still works fine (albeit running 10.6.8), it is always possible that some of my users do, or a C2D mini, as well. Many are still running 10.6.8 for certain, as I get a lot of mail / forum posts thanking me for keeping them covered. My app doesn't have a huge number of users - a few tens of thousands - but there are more than enough that my dev process has to cover a lot of OS levels and CPU types to be sure I'm not kicking someone downhill without any good reason. And yeah, I still carry that laptop around, and frankly, it pleases me that my app runs adequately on it.
Apple's move to 64-bit code is interesting. But unless the CPUs involved can't run 32-bit code, I rate choosing to obsolete applications people have bought or otherwise obtained legitimately to run on previous versions of the OS as pretty high on the scale of "Hey! Let's be fuckheads!" It's not like Apple is short of resources. If they want to support those apps, again barring impossible to address CPU-specific issues, they can. Which boils down to "Apple didn't have to screw you; Apple chose to screw you."
That doesn't follow. Unwanted can have many root causes. And the "calculation" involved in an advance is generally "I would like to know this person." Wait too long, you may lose to someone quicker on the draw. Wait, and you miss opportunities, even when you eventually succeed; every day, once gone, is gone forever.
If you are a desirable person, then you're going to be desired.
Your point about power dynamic vs. advances is very (probably most) important and will remain relevant even if women learn to shoulder an equal load in the "making advances" category. This is a potential problem in any structured authority system. Generally speaking, the most effective solutions involve only starting relationships at one's own level of authority.
However, this is not a panacea. My SO's father married his own secretary. My SO was one of my students. Both relationships are very long term (many decades) and have proven to be quite healthy and strong. Authority mismatch is not always an impediment or a bad thing; but the potential for it being a bad thing is much higher than with an equal level person / peer.
Best thing, IMHO, is that women learn to be initiators so that men don't have to do it the majority of the time. Then we can expect to be approached if we're desired, and we won't have to always be approaching women who may not want to be approached.
And yes, of course, politeness, consideration, and a willingness to accept whatever answer is given are important for all involved.
No one should support rude approaches. But when they occur, and they will, don't escalate. Be polite and withdraw as quickly and effectively as possible.
How in the exact crap it helps is that the links to paywalled sites stop working - they fail instantly (I actually generate a "this URL is disabled in hosts" page... OSX has a built-in webserver) and you're not deluged with crap like "pay me." Hit back (or whatever key combo your browser uses for back), you're back at google. No screwing with the junk sites, basically an immediate response, doesn't even have to hit the network.
Not only does this keep the offending site from sullying your browser, it doesn't even give them the courtesy of an Internet reach-around: the click never reaches their servers.
If you don't want paywalled sites, the best move is to vote with your wallet and you clicks. So don't go to them, even accidentally. This accomplishes that. Sites that misbehave are dead to you.
The other "sources" of news read and summarize those original articles, often with a much lower quality level.
When Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination, the NYT, Washington Post, and Guardian - which are all more or less liberal operations - "failed to adequately report" (by which I mean intentionally downplayed) coverage of his campaign.
I don't need "news" that uses bias to push its own agenda. That's not news. That's propaganda. "Quality level" isn't just about writing well. It's also about reporting without bias. The more bias there is, the less the actual value of the source. It really doesn't matter if they have reporters on the ground if what gets in the news source is all triaged into viewpoint-addled-mush.
I do want to know what's happening. Informing me of that in a completely even-handed manner, IMHO, is the news media's only legitimate job. I'll form my own opinions on it. Since the news media is doing a very, very poor job of avoiding exactly that kind of bias, I'll keep looking elsewhere. Even a poor-grammar, poor-spelling summary of one of those articles is better if the MSM slant is edited out.
You always have a choice. My choice is to add problem sites to my hosts file as 127.0.0.1;
This simple move serves to solve the paywall (and autoplay video, and spammy page covering ad, and junklink [try this one weird trick!], and we-don't-allow-commenting-sites, and similar) problems.
As far as the news goes, many non-paywalled sources remain. I use them.
Perhaps someday the news will move from a for-profit model to a for-the-people model. That'd make it much more worth supporting. Unless/until then... pffft.
If you want to complain no one has answered your take on things, you should bring reading skills and capacities above the third grade level (and I may be being unkind to many third graders there) in case someone actually, you know, answers you.
It is the height of rudeness to press for a response, and then fail to bother to read it. I'm absolutely unwounded – this is a profoundly obvious case of consider the source – but I certainly know better to continue engagement with demonstrated social cripples.
That's/thread. Anything further is just aimless scratching of itches.
Facts like people were writing and widely sharing open source code well before any of this nix-specific event came along in 1984. Go look at early issues of Byte, Kilobaud, Dr. Dobbs and so forth and so on.
I had source code of my own published and shared nationally in November 1977, and I wasn't anywhere near the first.
This kind of hype reminds me of Apple/IBM/Radioshack/Commodore and fans variously claiming they were the "roots" of the PC market. Look into the history of Altair, Imsai and SWTPC, for instance. Not saying who was first, I'm not sure by any means -- but I am sure who wasn't.
One more thing: Bugs abound in Amazon's Echo. As well as some fairly annoying designed-in, unfixable shortcomings. MyCroft is brand new. A little late, but not horribly so. I'm perfectly willing to give it some time and effort. Seeing as how I can change it to address any shortcomings that really concern me; I can't change the Echo, nor can I get it to do the things I really want it to, nor the way I want it to. And yes, I own the Echo.
But it will never be as good as the competitors that learn by users sharing data
It'll never be as good at sharing data with people you don't know and shouldn't trust, anyway. But the fact that you, a human, can do excellent speech-to-text, means that local software and hardware can get there eventually. And it'll very likely get there faster if that's the goal we preferentially chase.
I'm not the AC, but I have some commentary on the issue.
My position is that the GPL is inherently toxic to the economy, specifically to the portion of the economy that consists of opportunity to earn from creating software. That very economy is important to those of us who can program at a level where we can create commercial products. My tiny sector of said economy shall not be poisoned thus.
And before someone says "yes, but you can charge for support", the way I see it, the optimum path is to write software that doesn't need support. Why?
First, because that's best for the consumer: good docs, good performance, high reliability, minimum bugs, secure. I prefer to charge for the product, fix it for free if it breaks (after all, I sold it with the idea that it did X under conditions Y...Z; I maintain that's an obligation I must address if I possibly can), and charge for actual new features V...W. Likewise, if I write proper documentation (which I also maintain is my obligation), I don't need to be telling people how to do X, because I already told them how to do X. Not that I don't end up pointing people to the docs on how to do X, but that's not a failing of mine I have to be concerned about having foisted off on the consumer.
Second, because it's very good for me. If my users come to think of my products as reliable, well documented, fixed for free quickly if broken, and overall functional as advertised, they're a lot more likely to come back to me than if I continually charge them for doing the above things poorly. I'm not guessing here: This has worked extremely well for me.
What isn't good for the consumer is when Joe(anne) programmer looks at an idea, runs into the GPL, and goes, "no, not going to give my ideas to my competition" and wanders off elsewhere.
Licensing code under a non-copyleft free license means you are fine with someone taking your code and building a commercial product with it, and never giving it back in any way or form.
You contradict yourself. The opportunity to get a return is absolutely there. If Joe(anne) builds a commercial product, I have the opportunity to purchase that result; to encourage and benefit the programmer(s) who built the product in direct return for the benefit they provide me, and perhaps to benefit yet again further down the road as they consider the opportunity to earn more. Likewise, if it's me doing the programming, I'm one heck of a lot more likely to consider it if it means my family and I get to eat because I created something useful to someone than I am if my earnings are now compromised by having handed my work to the competition.
If you're okay with that, how come you're not okay with someone who does give it back, except in a way you can't use?
Because it represents an opportunity to earn; because it represents an incentive for the earner to make something for me, right along with a reason for them to do it. And I can use their work. Commercial products are usable. Writing code isn't the only use of code. Using the programs the code is incorporated in is a significant benefit. I can't be writing every program I use. Commercial products have been a huge boon to my career and my family.
Now, none of this means that I object to someone else's decision to license their stuff under the GPL; that's their code and they are absolutely free to license it any way they see fit. What it does mean, though, is that spotting a GPL license means I'm going to walk away from whatever it is. It won't benefit me in my commercial applications unless I give away my own inventions, and it has the potential to harm me by giving my work to my competition, so: not having any.
Personally, when I make code public (which I've done a bit of), I make it public, as in, you want to use it, copy it, learn from it, incorporate it in your commercial product, you just go right ahead, and I am
Slashdot Mirror
How fast it breaks, and how many seconds that takes, will depend on just how fast you hit something.
Remember to wear your seatbelt.
That's a very recent bit of knowledge, and one that was not available for most of history - yet we still didn't eat each other. Even the most ignorant and isolated peasants didn't do it. Try again. This time, think about empathy.
This is true - but we didn't know that until very recently. And it's not why we don't eat each other; resistance to doing that has been in place for longer than anyone remembers, free of knowledge or common experience with consequences to health. Free enough, in fact, that cannibalism keeps showing up in various forms, just as do other unhealthy but socially disfavored practices such as bloodline incest. There's been no inherent knowledge of the unhealthy nature of the act until someone actually engages in it, which, being very rare, hadn't been in the general knowledge base of the people until very recently.
Avoidance of cannibalism has been about empathy, primarily. For the victim, for the victim's relations. Knowledge about prions is, relatively speaking, a brand new factor. In one sense, it's good we know; in another, we don't have to, as cannibalism represents an obvious failure of empathy, a critical factor in healthy socialization, and the vast majority of people integrate the idea without needing a medical justification.
Also, just as an aside, there are plenty of red health flags WRT eating meat of other species. That should be sufficient to start up several relevant chains of thought that support what I've described here.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
You're an animal. A perfectly good one. Made out of food. But we don't eat you. Why? Because we respect the life and potential and feelings you represent, and find the idea of causing you pain, or harm, or loss of life, to be repugnant.
Some of us extend that to other animals. Consequently, we don't want to eat those other animals any more than we want to eat you.
For us, "clean meat" as TFS has it, is very welcome.
So that's the point.
How moral is it to let them starve?
How moral is it to deny them healthcare?
How moral is it to let them end up living on the street?
The "pointless job" concern pales next to any of the above, and can be the trigger that causes all of the above.
This is not a black and white issue of "job is pointless."
FTFY:
The money flows upwards. Not downwards. The "trickle-down" theories are pure fancies; the facts have illuminated the actual reality, which isn't so much "trickle-up" as "cascade-up."
Anyone who thinks this is good for the traditional workforce in the existing economic structure is deluded. Anyone who doesn't think so but says it is... well, it's pretty obvious at this point.
Until / unless we change the fundamental nature of the economy to an automation-based, human supporting one, this kind of thing represents the tightening of the economic noose about the lowest level worker's necks. I submit that it is inevitable, given the drive for companies to always increase revenue, but it's damned painful and there is no additional compensating mechanism available. In fact, with the Republicans in charge at the moment, what compensating mechanism there was is under pressure to be significantly reduced in effectiveness.
Shhh. You're disturbing the marketing pitch.
Tobacco has an artificially high price; that creates a black market. The government causes this. Not legality of tobacco.
As far as moonshine goes, I know people make it - it's very inexpensive to do, not unlike growing your own pot - but I've never, ever come across any for sale. Likewise, I had home-made wine quite a few times back in the day, but never had anyone offer to sell me any, ever. My SO likes to drink more than I do, so it's not like we don't get exposed to drinking culture and habits. The "moonshine black market" you're suggesting simply doesn't exist on any noticeable scale.
In any case, these alcohol efforts are tiny little subcultures; the recreational drug market is huge. According to Forbes, the market for marijuana alone is more than seven billion dollars a year. That's not moonshine scale, not even close. And that's just pot. Moving drugs to a regulated, known dose, reasonably priced model would utterly destroy the black market. Tobacco is actually the poster child for pricing controls: when cigarettes were inexpensive, there was almost no black marketing. Once the price per pack was 90% add-on fees and taxes, of course a black market developed. Dealers could make 300% and more and still price at only a fraction of government-addled prices.
The problem with your idea is that most of the burdens are actually consequent to the drug war itself, not drugs.
The drug war created, and exacerbates, the black market and the violence that pervades it at every level. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the unknown dose problem. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the pricing problems. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the toxic mix problem. The drug war created, and exacerbates, a whole raft of horrible and grotesquely extended consequences to life, family, jobs. The drug war created, and exacerbates, the "forbidden fruit" attraction.
You want people to not interfere with society, then make that illegal. I'm all for it. Don't steal, don't kill, don't operate dangerous equipment high or we'll kick your ass. Sure. But if they're not interfering, you should leave them be. Some poor high idiot who is bothering no one should not be a legitimate target for government coercion. And it's very important to realize that most "bothering" is a consequence of the drug war. Not the cause of it.
Look. I don't drug, or drink intoxicating amounts - wine in spaghetti sauce is about my speed. That's been true for about 40 years now (I'm 60 ATOW.) I'm not particularly a fan of either modality these days, and find the world more than entertaining enough all on its own. But that doesn't mean I think anyone has the right to tell me, or anyone else, that I "must" act this way. And I have seen an immense amount of damage done by government in pursuit of the drug war. It needs to stop. It's beyond stupid, well into counterproductive, and toxic to society as all hell.
In the US, about 16 deaths a month (~200/year) occur because the roads are built such that wildlife can get on them. A collision with some form of wildlife occurs, on average, every 39 minutes. Is the government panicking about this? Are they doing anything significant about it? No (notable exception, Indiana... they have IR wildlife detection on some highways, or at least they did at one point, it's been a few years since I drove through there.) And generally speaking, they won't. Because they don't care about you, or risks to you, or your children. Also because doing so wouldn't pump enough money into enough people's pockets, unlike the drug war, which is a nearly bottomless moneypot for all manner of interests. Also because its a lot harder to scare moms with as compared to OMG DRUGZ.
Q: How do you protect yourself against a drug overdose or addiction?
A: Don't take them, or, stop taking them.
Correcting the highways - protecting us - from our becoming victims of wildlife incursions, we need big money and big government. Because it's naturally pretty expensive, effort-intensive, and it's a serious problem.
Protecting ourself from drugs: We can do that ourselves, if we want to. If we don't want to, then we aren't being "protected" when we are interfered with... we're just being interfered with.
Liberty is, essentially as its fundamental character, that thing that that says we can do things that we are are informed about and which we personally, or consensually, choose to do; and that we are protected from others by the agreement that things we don't consent to, or are lacking understanding of, are not foisted off upon us against our will or by our lack of understanding.
Government's role is such protection is exemplified as education: striving to make the citizens reach an informed state about the world. It can also have a valid role in preventing non-consensual action, which ranges from being forced to do something, to running into an animal because they are not kept from the roadways as they should obviously be.
Please vote for people who will end the "war on drugs." It is the very antithesis of liberty. While you're at it, learn about drugs, and convey that information downstream to your kids and students and via any mentor relationships you may enjoy.
And throw some money at a low-IR camera for your vehicle. It could save your life. Because the government doesn't care to.
I've read this far, and my main conclusion is that people are more concerned with looks than function. AFAIAC, a car must incorporate these eight important things:
1: It needs to be reliable
2: It needs to be affordable to buy
3: It needs to be affordable to run
4: It needs to meet the cargo / passenger requirements
5: It needs to be comfortable
6: It needs to provide sufficient practical amenities
7: It needs to be safe
8: It needs to pollute as little as possible
How it looks is wholly irrelevant.
It appears it may mean that some or all 32-bit APIs may be going away. So that's somewhat of a serious concern for me as it would break Qt's OS interface. Of course, there's always the VM route, which I expect to keep working until/unless VMWARE goes away. Oh, and Parallels, too. And the others.
I don't sell it, I give it away, and I have (and plan to have) no dealings whatsoever with Apple's app store. So no, not really a realization for me. :)
ARC: I manage my own memory. I have no need of ARC. I'm glad it's there for others in some versions of the OS, though. The problem I can't get around is that the OS itself leaks like a sieve. Still true as of 10.12. I always hope it'll be better with each new release, but not so far. If you want to unmask the worst cases of it, just turn off VM for a week and watch your memory consumption. Pretty sad.
My kernal_task is currently consuming 2.87 GB. By far the biggest wastrel. 14.52 GB of memory in use; except, no, it isn't. Also 9.25 GB cached, which, meh, I'm not too worried about performance boost caching, but some of that stuff hasn't been used in weeks. I'll have to reboot to clean it up, or fling purge at the system, which cleans up waaaay too much.
ABI: The problem here is that it means abandoning support for earlier OS's, and there's no actual reason to do that at this time. Particularly in that there is operating hardware in the field that Apple won't let run the new OS levels. Quite arbitrarily, too.
I will confess though... if Apple and the Qt people actually made a serious effort to clean up all the reported bugs instead of only the ones that have X>N reporters, they might be able to tempt me into a new build using the latest and greatest.
Unfortunately, both of them are a lot more interested in "shiny" than they are in "works like we claimed it works." They both habitually leave broken software systems unrepaired, while leaping into the future with the New Shiny. And besides... if they did fix all those bugs, I expect I'd get the benefit without building anew. The reason I say that is that builds that are 100% under Windows are less so under OS X. It seems very likely indeed that the problem is specific to OS X, especially considering how badly the OS leaks for pretty much everything app it runs. Including itself.
Wrong. I do. I build my SDR app - which is a very complex thing - for 10.6.8 and up, and XP and up, is tested on all subsequent releases of both OSX and Windows, and (among other CPUs) on core 2 duo machines prior to release level issuance. It takes awhile, but mostly its rote testing using only slightly updated test suites, since I am long past requiring new OS calls.
Unless you actually need something from a later OS or CPU, there's no particular reason to target said CPU specifically, or to artificially inconvenience or lock out users of earlier hardware/OS (as Apple has done... the "Sierra won't run on these machines" business has been shown to be an artificial limit by software patches around the "oh no you don't" code that enables it to run just fine.)
In my case, a C2D provides (just barely) enough horsepower to run my app. Since it can, I see to it that it will. Further, since I have a 17" C2D macbook pro that still works fine (albeit running 10.6.8), it is always possible that some of my users do, or a C2D mini, as well. Many are still running 10.6.8 for certain, as I get a lot of mail / forum posts thanking me for keeping them covered. My app doesn't have a huge number of users - a few tens of thousands - but there are more than enough that my dev process has to cover a lot of OS levels and CPU types to be sure I'm not kicking someone downhill without any good reason. And yeah, I still carry that laptop around, and frankly, it pleases me that my app runs adequately on it.
Apple's move to 64-bit code is interesting. But unless the CPUs involved can't run 32-bit code, I rate choosing to obsolete applications people have bought or otherwise obtained legitimately to run on previous versions of the OS as pretty high on the scale of "Hey! Let's be fuckheads!" It's not like Apple is short of resources. If they want to support those apps, again barring impossible to address CPU-specific issues, they can. Which boils down to "Apple didn't have to screw you; Apple chose to screw you."
That doesn't follow. Unwanted can have many root causes. And the "calculation" involved in an advance is generally "I would like to know this person." Wait too long, you may lose to someone quicker on the draw. Wait, and you miss opportunities, even when you eventually succeed; every day, once gone, is gone forever.
If you are a desirable person, then you're going to be desired.
Your point about power dynamic vs. advances is very (probably most) important and will remain relevant even if women learn to shoulder an equal load in the "making advances" category. This is a potential problem in any structured authority system. Generally speaking, the most effective solutions involve only starting relationships at one's own level of authority.
However, this is not a panacea. My SO's father married his own secretary. My SO was one of my students. Both relationships are very long term (many decades) and have proven to be quite healthy and strong. Authority mismatch is not always an impediment or a bad thing; but the potential for it being a bad thing is much higher than with an equal level person / peer.
Best thing, IMHO, is that women learn to be initiators so that men don't have to do it the majority of the time. Then we can expect to be approached if we're desired, and we won't have to always be approaching women who may not want to be approached.
And yes, of course, politeness, consideration, and a willingness to accept whatever answer is given are important for all involved.
No one should support rude approaches. But when they occur, and they will, don't escalate. Be polite and withdraw as quickly and effectively as possible.
How in the exact crap it helps is that the links to paywalled sites stop working - they fail instantly (I actually generate a "this URL is disabled in hosts" page... OSX has a built-in webserver) and you're not deluged with crap like "pay me." Hit back (or whatever key combo your browser uses for back), you're back at google. No screwing with the junk sites, basically an immediate response, doesn't even have to hit the network.
Not only does this keep the offending site from sullying your browser, it doesn't even give them the courtesy of an Internet reach-around: the click never reaches their servers.
If you don't want paywalled sites, the best move is to vote with your wallet and you clicks. So don't go to them, even accidentally. This accomplishes that. Sites that misbehave are dead to you.
When Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination, the NYT, Washington Post, and Guardian - which are all more or less liberal operations - "failed to adequately report" (by which I mean intentionally downplayed) coverage of his campaign.
I don't need "news" that uses bias to push its own agenda. That's not news. That's propaganda. "Quality level" isn't just about writing well. It's also about reporting without bias. The more bias there is, the less the actual value of the source. It really doesn't matter if they have reporters on the ground if what gets in the news source is all triaged into viewpoint-addled-mush.
I do want to know what's happening. Informing me of that in a completely even-handed manner, IMHO, is the news media's only legitimate job. I'll form my own opinions on it. Since the news media is doing a very, very poor job of avoiding exactly that kind of bias, I'll keep looking elsewhere. Even a poor-grammar, poor-spelling summary of one of those articles is better if the MSM slant is edited out.
You always have a choice. My choice is to add problem sites to my hosts file as 127.0.0.1;
This simple move serves to solve the paywall (and autoplay video, and spammy page covering ad, and junklink [try this one weird trick!], and we-don't-allow-commenting-sites, and similar) problems.
As far as the news goes, many non-paywalled sources remain. I use them.
Perhaps someday the news will move from a for-profit model to a for-the-people model. That'd make it much more worth supporting. Unless/until then... pffft.
If you want to complain no one has answered your take on things, you should bring reading skills and capacities above the third grade level (and I may be being unkind to many third graders there) in case someone actually, you know, answers you.
It is the height of rudeness to press for a response, and then fail to bother to read it. I'm absolutely unwounded – this is a profoundly obvious case of consider the source – but I certainly know better to continue engagement with demonstrated social cripples.
That's /thread. Anything further is just aimless scratching of itches.
Facts like people were writing and widely sharing open source code well before any of this nix-specific event came along in 1984. Go look at early issues of Byte, Kilobaud, Dr. Dobbs and so forth and so on.
I had source code of my own published and shared nationally in November 1977, and I wasn't anywhere near the first.
This kind of hype reminds me of Apple/IBM/Radioshack/Commodore and fans variously claiming they were the "roots" of the PC market. Look into the history of Altair, Imsai and SWTPC, for instance. Not saying who was first, I'm not sure by any means -- but I am sure who wasn't.
Well, once I read that, I didn't read any more of yours either. Cheers. :)
One more thing: Bugs abound in Amazon's Echo. As well as some fairly annoying designed-in, unfixable shortcomings. MyCroft is brand new. A little late, but not horribly so. I'm perfectly willing to give it some time and effort. Seeing as how I can change it to address any shortcomings that really concern me; I can't change the Echo, nor can I get it to do the things I really want it to, nor the way I want it to. And yes, I own the Echo.
You can replace the remote voice recognition in MyCroft. And you should.That was my entire point.
It'll never be as good at sharing data with people you don't know and shouldn't trust, anyway. But the fact that you, a human, can do excellent speech-to-text, means that local software and hardware can get there eventually. And it'll very likely get there faster if that's the goal we preferentially chase.
And we should.
I'm not the AC, but I have some commentary on the issue.
My position is that the GPL is inherently toxic to the economy, specifically to the portion of the economy that consists of opportunity to earn from creating software. That very economy is important to those of us who can program at a level where we can create commercial products. My tiny sector of said economy shall not be poisoned thus.
And before someone says "yes, but you can charge for support", the way I see it, the optimum path is to write software that doesn't need support. Why?
First, because that's best for the consumer: good docs, good performance, high reliability, minimum bugs, secure. I prefer to charge for the product, fix it for free if it breaks (after all, I sold it with the idea that it did X under conditions Y...Z; I maintain that's an obligation I must address if I possibly can), and charge for actual new features V...W. Likewise, if I write proper documentation (which I also maintain is my obligation), I don't need to be telling people how to do X, because I already told them how to do X. Not that I don't end up pointing people to the docs on how to do X, but that's not a failing of mine I have to be concerned about having foisted off on the consumer.
Second, because it's very good for me. If my users come to think of my products as reliable, well documented, fixed for free quickly if broken, and overall functional as advertised, they're a lot more likely to come back to me than if I continually charge them for doing the above things poorly. I'm not guessing here: This has worked extremely well for me.
What isn't good for the consumer is when Joe(anne) programmer looks at an idea, runs into the GPL, and goes, "no, not going to give my ideas to my competition" and wanders off elsewhere.
You contradict yourself. The opportunity to get a return is absolutely there. If Joe(anne) builds a commercial product, I have the opportunity to purchase that result; to encourage and benefit the programmer(s) who built the product in direct return for the benefit they provide me, and perhaps to benefit yet again further down the road as they consider the opportunity to earn more. Likewise, if it's me doing the programming, I'm one heck of a lot more likely to consider it if it means my family and I get to eat because I created something useful to someone than I am if my earnings are now compromised by having handed my work to the competition.
Because it represents an opportunity to earn; because it represents an incentive for the earner to make something for me, right along with a reason for them to do it. And I can use their work. Commercial products are usable. Writing code isn't the only use of code. Using the programs the code is incorporated in is a significant benefit. I can't be writing every program I use. Commercial products have been a huge boon to my career and my family.
Now, none of this means that I object to someone else's decision to license their stuff under the GPL; that's their code and they are absolutely free to license it any way they see fit. What it does mean, though, is that spotting a GPL license means I'm going to walk away from whatever it is. It won't benefit me in my commercial applications unless I give away my own inventions, and it has the potential to harm me by giving my work to my competition, so: not having any.
Personally, when I make code public (which I've done a bit of), I make it public, as in, you want to use it, copy it, learn from it, incorporate it in your commercial product, you just go right ahead, and I am