Why should the wealthy get benefits they don't need? The whole point of the baby bonus was to make it easier to deal with all the costs associated with having a new child. Wealthy people just don't need that, as you well know.
All benefits paid by the government should be means tested. All of them.
I understood that the law did not mandate that banks must make high risk loans, it mandated that they could not discriminate based on location. The person requesting the loan still had to show an ability to pay.
Just like every other person requesting a loan across the planet - prudent bankers require proof that they'll get their money back.
If banks interpreted that as being required to make loans to people who can never repay them, then more fool them. They should have gone under.
All computers - Macs or PCs - use open standards for expansion buses and I/O ports. It's trivial to get hold of the specs for PCI connectors, and you can still build whatever you like to go into the slot.
USB is easier still.
The difference between now and the 80s is that the bar has been raised several times. Back then I could put together a circuit on breadboard, run a few wires to a connector and plug that into the school's Apple-][e. Now the connector requires so much more, and the trivial little BASIC programme I could use to read the I/O ports requires a framework, a compiler, low-level I/O system calls and so on. The basic techniques are not a million miles apart, but it's harder to get stuff going.
While I can see what you're trying to say, your posts and the responses to them only underlines the difficulty of converying meaning. Code alone can't manage, and comments need to be unambiguous and clear.
If anything, your earlier post combined with the many responses forms a good argument for more thorough commenting.
Why should any tax money ever go to a business, unless you're in a socialist country with nationalised businesses?
I resent that my taxes go to 'private' schools that I will never send my child to, go to propping up healthcare insurers (healthcare rebate back at tax time) that I don't use and are being considered for supporting the companies that caused the pollution behind the whole climate change issue in the first place.
The role of government is to govern. It's not to support a crappy business model by splashing around tax money. I would far rather see businesses fail and be replaced by leaner, smarter businesses or hell, just nationalised (why not go the rest of the way) than to see shareholders and executives growing fat on tax dollars. That's a redistribution of wealth that has nothing to do with capaitalism, good economics or prudent business practices.
End all government subsidies to all businesses. Let them wither and die if their profitability depended on tax money.
Green technology stands on its own as either worthwhile or not. It doesn't require data on greenhouse gases to be manipulated.
A few examples - those 'green' light bulbs and wind power. The light bulbs should last longer and use less power, making them a good idea before anything else. Wind power is not so efficient, but it makes a lot of sense in many places in the world, and wind is free while coal costs a little, and pollutes a lot. For specific locations, wind power is a great idea.
If the whole man-made climate change thing falls apart tomorrow, dollars invested in good green technology won't be lost at all. They'll be just as profitable because the tech makes sense regardless.
You don't need to construct a shadowy conspiracy of climate change proponents when you're talking about the money in green technology. It fails Occam's Razor.
I don't remember the cooling theory in the 70s, but I remember the ozone hole from the 80s pretty well. In my home state of Tasmania it was a bit of an issue, as it should have been in all the southern places of the world. There were scares about sunburn and skin cancer (which is still an issue), and cool satellite images of a blobby shape over Antarctica. There's a pretty solid link between UV radiation and cancer, and given the ozone layer's role in blocking UV, it was the beginnings of a real problem.
And then the whole world moved away from chloro-fluorocarbons as a propellant, giving the ozone layer time to rebuild through normal processes. It's mostly better now, and is a good example of the whole planet solving an environmental problem before it got any worse.
It's odd that you should use it in the opposite way - as an unfounded scare. You're completely wrong on that one. And the lines of code referred to in your link were apparently commented out, based on tree rings and used to produce a poster, not a scientific graph. The whole case is shaky for both sides - no-one is looking good right now. One side has stupidly lost its data (either wilful stupidity or an attempt to hide the truth) while the other is trawling for any word or email to take out of context (lay-people cannot read a few emails and somehow gain all the knowledge and context of an entire field of science).
No-one looks good right now, and as I've said, your post has its own problems. Perhaps you might like to reconsider your absolute certainty.
If it weren't for competition between OSs, we'd still be using MS-DOS.
Hmm... possibly. We had Amigas, Atari STs, Macs, Apple-IIs and Amstrads back then. The OS was a non-issue, as the hardware was where the competition lived, and the applications was what we bought the hardware for. Few cared about the OS, except as a springboard into the apps.
MacOS and Windows only got things like pre-emptive multitasking because Linux showed it was possible on consumer level hardware.
Aren't you forgetting the Amiga? Before Linux existed in any form, the Amiga was doing pre-emptive multi-tasking very nicely indeed on a Motorola 68000. I'm also fairly sure that Windows had it back in '90, well before the Mac and also before Linux existed.
Competition is great for spurring the entire market forwards, but I have to argue some specific points.
Gee, if only it was possible to release a competing product for OS X.
I guess that'll always be the dream, eh?
Seriously Jedidiah - do you have any real points to make about Apple, or are they all as bad as this one? It's a bit sad to see the respected low-ID numbers used for trolling.
Didn't Apple remove DRM on iTunes music tracks some time back? In fact, a brief search turned up an article in January announcing this (http://www.macworld.com/article/138000/2009/01/drm_faq.html). I'm sure this was news in various tech sites. You need to keep on top of that sort of thing if you're going to complain about it.
That sort of makes your post a bit redundant, or at least misplaced.
When people say that Apple is just a marketing company, I have to wonder what's sadder - the fact that they clearly have no grasp on reality outside their heavily biased (and edited) version, or the way they get modded up as insightful when it's clearly trolling.
Apple aren't the great and wonderful company that some may think, but they're a hell of a lot more than just a marketing company.
Ah, but you're not using a Slashdot-approved tool to do it. That's the problem.
If you check email on the go using a MacBook, you're a poseur, a wanker and possibly gay. You're there to be seen, you're all style without substance, and that style is in question.
If you check email on the go with a netbook running Linux, you're a savvy user doing tasks smartly. You're in control, a keen thinker, a hacker in the old sense. You're one of the in-crowd, one of the power users.
The difference is tricky, because the tool approved by users around here changes. It was the MacBook a few years ago, but fashion changes pretty quickly on Slashdot, and while people here think they're somehow above fashion and marketing, we're really just as subject to it as anyone else on the planet.
The components are mostly off-the-shelf, but you're under some strange impression that the motherboard is (it's clearly not, as any tear-apart of a Mac will show). Add in the batteries in their laptops and the industrial design (it's more than just throwing hardware bits into a box you know), and then add an entire OS, many other items of hardware (you may have heard of the iPod and iPhone) and you can quickly see that your opinion of Apple as a marketing company is deluded.
I suspect you're a rabid anti-Apple troll, as they're the only ones foolish enough to put the whole "marketing company" meme about.
But you can enlighten me if I'm wrong. Show me how Apple does less design than Dell or HP, how these other companies are more 'real' computer manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
2) The 25-December customary date is a fabrication. Jesus was most likely born in the spring based on accounts of what was happening at the time.
Even the Bible supports this.
Shepherds out and about in deep Winter? Hmm... even in Israel you get snowfall in Winter. Not the time to have sheep and lambs around.
Which version of Snow Leopard does all of that?
I've found it to be pretty good so far, on both my Mac and my wife's.
I've not heard of this other stuff. It sounds a little made-up, or at least cherry-picked.
Why should the wealthy get benefits they don't need? The whole point of the baby bonus was to make it easier to deal with all the costs associated with having a new child. Wealthy people just don't need that, as you well know.
All benefits paid by the government should be means tested. All of them.
I understood that the law did not mandate that banks must make high risk loans, it mandated that they could not discriminate based on location. The person requesting the loan still had to show an ability to pay.
Just like every other person requesting a loan across the planet - prudent bankers require proof that they'll get their money back.
If banks interpreted that as being required to make loans to people who can never repay them, then more fool them. They should have gone under.
I'm pretty sure the Psystar 'technology' was just lifted from the Hackintosh community and resold. The info is hardly a secret, after all.
I don't understand this complaint.
All computers - Macs or PCs - use open standards for expansion buses and I/O ports. It's trivial to get hold of the specs for PCI connectors, and you can still build whatever you like to go into the slot.
USB is easier still.
The difference between now and the 80s is that the bar has been raised several times. Back then I could put together a circuit on breadboard, run a few wires to a connector and plug that into the school's Apple-][e. Now the connector requires so much more, and the trivial little BASIC programme I could use to read the I/O ports requires a framework, a compiler, low-level I/O system calls and so on. The basic techniques are not a million miles apart, but it's harder to get stuff going.
The Dell Vostro 1520 in front of me right now doesn't have that. It's a recent model, made for business.
While I can see what you're trying to say, your posts and the responses to them only underlines the difficulty of converying meaning. Code alone can't manage, and comments need to be unambiguous and clear.
If anything, your earlier post combined with the many responses forms a good argument for more thorough commenting.
Why should any tax money ever go to a business, unless you're in a socialist country with nationalised businesses?
I resent that my taxes go to 'private' schools that I will never send my child to, go to propping up healthcare insurers (healthcare rebate back at tax time) that I don't use and are being considered for supporting the companies that caused the pollution behind the whole climate change issue in the first place.
The role of government is to govern. It's not to support a crappy business model by splashing around tax money. I would far rather see businesses fail and be replaced by leaner, smarter businesses or hell, just nationalised (why not go the rest of the way) than to see shareholders and executives growing fat on tax dollars. That's a redistribution of wealth that has nothing to do with capaitalism, good economics or prudent business practices.
End all government subsidies to all businesses. Let them wither and die if their profitability depended on tax money.
Green technology stands on its own as either worthwhile or not. It doesn't require data on greenhouse gases to be manipulated.
A few examples - those 'green' light bulbs and wind power. The light bulbs should last longer and use less power, making them a good idea before anything else. Wind power is not so efficient, but it makes a lot of sense in many places in the world, and wind is free while coal costs a little, and pollutes a lot. For specific locations, wind power is a great idea.
If the whole man-made climate change thing falls apart tomorrow, dollars invested in good green technology won't be lost at all. They'll be just as profitable because the tech makes sense regardless.
You don't need to construct a shadowy conspiracy of climate change proponents when you're talking about the money in green technology. It fails Occam's Razor.
I don't remember the cooling theory in the 70s, but I remember the ozone hole from the 80s pretty well. In my home state of Tasmania it was a bit of an issue, as it should have been in all the southern places of the world. There were scares about sunburn and skin cancer (which is still an issue), and cool satellite images of a blobby shape over Antarctica. There's a pretty solid link between UV radiation and cancer, and given the ozone layer's role in blocking UV, it was the beginnings of a real problem.
And then the whole world moved away from chloro-fluorocarbons as a propellant, giving the ozone layer time to rebuild through normal processes. It's mostly better now, and is a good example of the whole planet solving an environmental problem before it got any worse.
It's odd that you should use it in the opposite way - as an unfounded scare. You're completely wrong on that one. And the lines of code referred to in your link were apparently commented out, based on tree rings and used to produce a poster, not a scientific graph. The whole case is shaky for both sides - no-one is looking good right now. One side has stupidly lost its data (either wilful stupidity or an attempt to hide the truth) while the other is trawling for any word or email to take out of context (lay-people cannot read a few emails and somehow gain all the knowledge and context of an entire field of science).
No-one looks good right now, and as I've said, your post has its own problems. Perhaps you might like to reconsider your absolute certainty.
It saddens me what passes for debate these days. That worthless cynicism like the parent post can be considered an intelligent comment beggars belief.
If it weren't for competition between OSs, we'd still be using MS-DOS.
Hmm... possibly. We had Amigas, Atari STs, Macs, Apple-IIs and Amstrads back then. The OS was a non-issue, as the hardware was where the competition lived, and the applications was what we bought the hardware for. Few cared about the OS, except as a springboard into the apps.
MacOS and Windows only got things like pre-emptive multitasking because Linux showed it was possible on consumer level hardware.
Aren't you forgetting the Amiga? Before Linux existed in any form, the Amiga was doing pre-emptive multi-tasking very nicely indeed on a Motorola 68000. I'm also fairly sure that Windows had it back in '90, well before the Mac and also before Linux existed.
Competition is great for spurring the entire market forwards, but I have to argue some specific points.
Gee, if only it was possible to release a competing product for OS X.
I guess that'll always be the dream, eh?
Seriously Jedidiah - do you have any real points to make about Apple, or are they all as bad as this one? It's a bit sad to see the respected low-ID numbers used for trolling.
Unless we've got a company director from Google hanging about Slashdot, this is a bit unlikely. As you well know.
Perhaps it might be more useful to post how Google is actively being evil, as opposed to just normal business decisions.
Didn't Apple remove DRM on iTunes music tracks some time back? In fact, a brief search turned up an article in January announcing this (http://www.macworld.com/article/138000/2009/01/drm_faq.html). I'm sure this was news in various tech sites. You need to keep on top of that sort of thing if you're going to complain about it.
That sort of makes your post a bit redundant, or at least misplaced.
That plague? It'll start with an unsanitised public telephone.
Bad things can happen when you rid yourselves of one-third of the population, or as some might say, "a load of useless bloody loonies."
Arbitrary enforcement of laws pretty much defines corruption.
The laws applies to all, or none. Selective application shows the laws are meaningless, just ways to punish some scapegoats.
When people say that Apple is just a marketing company, I have to wonder what's sadder - the fact that they clearly have no grasp on reality outside their heavily biased (and edited) version, or the way they get modded up as insightful when it's clearly trolling.
Apple aren't the great and wonderful company that some may think, but they're a hell of a lot more than just a marketing company.
The kernel, not as of 2006 or so [macworld.co.uk]
No, you are wrong. Please do your homework before posting factually incorrect information.
Ah the agony of choice.
Should I post about how the parent is factually incorrect, and doesn't even try to back up their little bit of rhetoric with anything?
Or should I post about how sad is it that the parent was modded insightful for posting a trite piece of doggerel?
Ah, but you're not using a Slashdot-approved tool to do it. That's the problem.
If you check email on the go using a MacBook, you're a poseur, a wanker and possibly gay. You're there to be seen, you're all style without substance, and that style is in question.
If you check email on the go with a netbook running Linux, you're a savvy user doing tasks smartly. You're in control, a keen thinker, a hacker in the old sense. You're one of the in-crowd, one of the power users.
The difference is tricky, because the tool approved by users around here changes. It was the MacBook a few years ago, but fashion changes pretty quickly on Slashdot, and while people here think they're somehow above fashion and marketing, we're really just as subject to it as anyone else on the planet.
The components are mostly off-the-shelf, but you're under some strange impression that the motherboard is (it's clearly not, as any tear-apart of a Mac will show). Add in the batteries in their laptops and the industrial design (it's more than just throwing hardware bits into a box you know), and then add an entire OS, many other items of hardware (you may have heard of the iPod and iPhone) and you can quickly see that your opinion of Apple as a marketing company is deluded.
I suspect you're a rabid anti-Apple troll, as they're the only ones foolish enough to put the whole "marketing company" meme about.
But you can enlighten me if I'm wrong. Show me how Apple does less design than Dell or HP, how these other companies are more 'real' computer manufacturers.
TPM chip?
I don't believe they even include those, and after the initial x86 hardware beta, they never even used them.
You're getting cause and effect the wrong way around.