I have never had those problems or had anyone on my team of 9 and my team of 15 have those problems on windows PC's either.
However, I agree the Mac has a more polished operating system. That's usually been at a higher initial cost however. I went to PC's in my personal life because Mac's were 3x to 4x the cost for less capability. The ratio is much lower today but even five or six years ago, macs were still significantly more expensive.
There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hellâ" I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It wonâ(TM)t be so much â(TM)cause the courts agree with us too.
This is almost certainly the crime of incitement to violence (or murder if they'd accidentally killed someone).
What ever the democrats are alleged to have done is a separate issue. So I'm going to ignore your attempted/pivot but I'll give you a cookie for not using "But Hillary!"
Good catch! Brietbart does indeed have negative credibility!
I would put the daily mail at -3 and Brietbart somewhere around -67 on a 1-100 point scale.
To be fair, I haven't researched the daily mail as much and mostly picked up it was a bad source from other people's comments.
I've actually given Breitbart a look after they took over Trump's campaign and there is a difference between the daily mail, "making shit up while high" and Brietbart knowingly passing lies as truth and actively publishing propaganda.
"Andrew Breitbart has a job to do and he does it well. Breitbartâ(TM)s job is to lie and distort the truth in order to advance a right-wing agenda, embarrass liberals, and undermine the Obama administration.
Breitbart is not a journalist, researcher, or pundit. He is a propagandist. He operates several websites (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, and BigHollywood), where he and other right-wing bloggers spew their political pornography. The articles that appear on these websites are contemporary versions of what historian Richard Hofstadter called, in a famous 1964 essay, the âoeparanoid styleâ of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives. "
"This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â"
This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â
Brietbart is a racist propaganda site associated with the alt right who's "fact checking" consists of quoting stuff people say on blogs. Brietbart makes Fox news look like liberals and socialists.
Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.
That was pretty shocking. But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence. And taking people's coats then throwing them out into freezing weather. It was an early reveal of Trump's character and that he was pretty dangerous when he has power.
Just to put it out there (it's tangential) because it's inspiring...
Conservative and liberal; christian, jewish and people of other faiths have helped multiple times to rebuild and repair different mosques which have been attacked by extremists and racists (most apparently using using fire bombs/molatovs). Atheists were not explicitly called out but probably some of the liberals were atheists.
Was it even further right wing nutjobs? Was it a false flag operation as they are getting desperate about losing NC? Was it really really dumb left wingers? Was it democrats?
The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.
I had some tomatoes the other day and they literally tasted like grapes (they had that much sugar) instead of tomatoes.
We seem to have gotten past the "tastes like cardboard there is so much cellulose to improve shipping life" stage and gotten things that look better and taste better but they are significantly lower in nutrition.
I think it's possible to have the nutrients- but we need to measure them and report on them for companies to target on them. If you don't measure nutrients, companies are going to focus on looks and taste over nutrition.
A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austinâ(TM)s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding âoereliable declinesâ in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.
âoeEfforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,â reported Davis, âoebut their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.â There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.
Hacking them and educating them about the risks is a good thing.
Things will get tighter and the laws will get harsher.
Given they've already shown some of the Wikileaks were altered, you need to be careful however. And given that some were released by Russian hackers closely associated with official russian agencies, you need to be even more careful. Trump was already caught quoting a manipulated leaked email.
As more altered emails come out, our ability to trust leaks will be compromised.
"Zabel's team did however note a higher work ethic in studies that contained the response of employees working in industry rather than of students. "
That makes the title very misleading.
Look- I'm a late boomer and I have to say this is almost a literally dead issue. I'm already retired. I know several other boomers who are retired.
And I can say from experience, the young kids are distracted by the latest fads and office romance in a way boomers are not. There was a clearer, brighter line between work and personal life for most of boomer's lives. It's not fair to judge kids who grew up in an environment where work is a 24 hour a day thing to keep up with their personal lives during "work" time. Because work sure as hell infringes on their "life" time.
Likewise, kids are growing up in an environment where they have a more realistic assessment of how companies are going to use and dump them. Loyalty WON'T be rewarded and they know it. It used to be when the boomers were developing their habits.
but anyway- the title is misleading if the last sentence in the summary is true. Big shock-- this is slashdot.
I know right? Management and executives took all their pay 30 years ago while they promised union workers pensions which would have fed into the detroit economy today.
Then after getting their money back then, they used financial chicanery to declare bankruptcy negating the pensions. Then they reopened plants elsewhere with sub-poverty labor costs.
I liked Bernie. I would have voted for Bernie happily.
But if he couldn't beat the most unelectable democratic candidate in years, he had no chance against trump.
Clinton (who I considered unelectable in 2015) beat Bernie without use of the super delegates which were simply icing on the cake. Your position might be more credible if Bernie had beat Clinton in the votes and regular deleges.
1) ALL politicians lie to the american people. And it's not their fault. It's the voter's fault. Almost all politicians lie 25% to 33% of the time. A majority of these are lies of omission (about 66% to 75%). But about a quarter to a third of their lies are bald faced flat out howlers.
2) Various fact checking sites show that Clinton lies a little less than other politicians on average. Probably not because she's noble but because she knows everything she says will be fact checked. Most of her lies are unprovable, "I can't recall" or lies of omission.
3) Trump lies (provably) over 70% of the time. And he lacks the cleverness to lie by omission. Most of his lies are bald faced howlers. When called on his lies he a) attacks the interviewer (and he's mostly retreated to the safety of sean hannity now to avoid this) b) immediately covers the lie with several other lies, or c) changes the subject. If lying is important to you- Trump verifiably lies 2-3 times more than Clinton.
4) In the debate, Trump lied 34 times- Clinton lied 4 times. I think two of her lies were kinda weak. In any case, trump lied almost an order of magnitude more than Trump.
5) And the entire point of the Debate was to set Pence up to either a) agree that trump lied or b) provide a lovely attack ad which shows Pence lying AND also reminds the public of Trump's lies, insults, and word salads. I WANT a president who is clever enough to box an opponent in with lateral thinking like that. I don't want a president who can be baited with a tweet or set preening with a lame complement by a hostile foreign leader.
I think Clinton is typically flawed for washington senators, representatives and similarly powerful bureacratic positions.
I had to research her a lot this year and 1) Cinton's been the target of a propaganda war for close to 20 years. This would destroy most people. 2) The clinton foundation is very well run, has a much higher share of money that goes to help people than the american cancer society, has reasonable wages for its employees, and is highly rated by charity navigator. 3) Clinton's actions show she is willing to put the good of the party and the country ahead of her personal good. 4) Clinton's a patriot and even a bit of a nationalist. 5) Clinton's wonky, intelligent, and creative and open to feedback from staff. She is more of a cooperative than authoritarian leader but has the strength to make decisions and stick by them.
I think if you dig into her history on non conservative sites, you'll find the same things.
Personally, I thought she was unelectable but, you know... Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never had those problems or had anyone on my team of 9 and my team of 15 have those problems on windows PC's either.
However, I agree the Mac has a more polished operating system. That's usually been at a higher initial cost however. I went to PC's in my personal life because Mac's were 3x to 4x the cost for less capability. The ratio is much lower today but even five or six years ago, macs were still significantly more expensive.
Telling people to punch other people and offering to pay their legal bills is a crime.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
No he's the bad guy for saying
There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hellâ" I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It wonâ(TM)t be so much â(TM)cause the courts agree with us too.
This is almost certainly the crime of incitement to violence (or murder if they'd accidentally killed someone).
What ever the democrats are alleged to have done is a separate issue. So I'm going to ignore your attempted /pivot but I'll give you a cookie for not using "But Hillary!"
No. when push came to shove.. lol.. he stiffed them and left them to twist in the breeze after saying he would cover their expenses.
Classic trump!
I've seen a lot of alt-righters and conservative times disparage the Huffington post but when I fact check the stories they are true.
Huffington Post is strongly biased like Fox news.
Brietbart doesn't even qualify as 'biased".
Good catch! Brietbart does indeed have negative credibility!
I would put the daily mail at -3 and Brietbart somewhere around -67 on a 1-100 point scale.
To be fair, I haven't researched the daily mail as much and mostly picked up it was a bad source from other people's comments.
I've actually given Breitbart a look after they took over Trump's campaign and there is a difference between the daily mail, "making shit up while high" and Brietbart knowingly passing lies as truth and actively publishing propaganda.
Even the Daily Mail has more credibility than Brietbart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"Andrew Breitbart has a job to do and he does it well. Breitbartâ(TM)s job is to lie and distort the truth in order to advance a right-wing agenda, embarrass liberals, and undermine the Obama administration.
Breitbart is not a journalist, researcher, or pundit. He is a propagandist. He operates several websites (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, and BigHollywood), where he and other right-wing bloggers spew their political pornography. The articles that appear on these websites are contemporary versions of what historian Richard Hofstadter called, in a famous 1964 essay, the âoeparanoid styleâ of American politics practiced by extreme conservatives. "
http://www.jimchines.com/2016/...
"This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â"
This is what rates an article on Breitbart. âoeHey, a commenter on the internet said that some unnamed person is talking to a couple of Toronto bookstores and showing them what some of the Sad/Rabid Puppies have said and asking them not to stock a said puppies. Oh, and yeah, thereâ(TM)s no actual evidence of it having any effect.â
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04...
Brietbart is a racist propaganda site associated with the alt right who's "fact checking" consists of quoting stuff people say on blogs.
Brietbart makes Fox news look like liberals and socialists.
Attacks actually happened at 6 different trump rallies.
That was pretty shocking. But the real issue was trump offering to cover legal expenses and encouraging violence. And taking people's coats then throwing them out into freezing weather. It was an early reveal of Trump's character and that he was pretty dangerous when he has power.
Just to put it out there (it's tangential) because it's inspiring...
Conservative and liberal; christian, jewish and people of other faiths have helped multiple times to rebuild and repair different mosques which have been attacked by extremists and racists (most apparently using using fire bombs/molatovs). Atheists were not explicitly called out but probably some of the liberals were atheists.
And if you believe it was an organized effort by the democratic party the same applies.
BTW, democrats have gathered over $10,000 to help rebuild it.
Someone firebombed the GOP office.
Was it even further right wing nutjobs?
Was it a false flag operation as they are getting desperate about losing NC?
Was it really really dumb left wingers?
Was it democrats?
Who knows. I hope they catch whoever did it.
Multiple studies have duplicated the results.
The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.
I had some tomatoes the other day and they literally tasted like grapes (they had that much sugar) instead of tomatoes.
We seem to have gotten past the "tastes like cardboard there is so much cellulose to improve shipping life" stage and gotten things that look better and taste better but they are significantly lower in nutrition.
I think it's possible to have the nutrients- but we need to measure them and report on them for companies to target on them. If you don't measure nutrients, companies are going to focus on looks and taste over nutrition.
Nutrient levels in vegetables are down sharply since the 1930s and even down since the 1980s.
https://www.scientificamerican...
A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austinâ(TM)s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding âoereliable declinesâ in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.
âoeEfforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,â reported Davis, âoebut their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.â There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.
I've been told (not an expert) that such weapons would be excellent targets on the battle field.
Hacking them and educating them about the risks is a good thing.
Things will get tighter and the laws will get harsher.
Given they've already shown some of the Wikileaks were altered, you need to be careful however. And given that some were released by Russian hackers closely associated with official russian agencies, you need to be even more careful. Trump was already caught quoting a manipulated leaked email.
As more altered emails come out, our ability to trust leaks will be compromised.
From the opening blurb.
"Zabel's team did however note a higher work ethic in studies that contained the response of employees working in industry rather than of students. "
That makes the title very misleading.
Look- I'm a late boomer and I have to say this is almost a literally dead issue. I'm already retired. I know several other boomers who are retired.
And I can say from experience, the young kids are distracted by the latest fads and office romance in a way boomers are not. There was a clearer, brighter line between work and personal life for most of boomer's lives. It's not fair to judge kids who grew up in an environment where work is a 24 hour a day thing to keep up with their personal lives during "work" time. Because work sure as hell infringes on their "life" time.
Likewise, kids are growing up in an environment where they have a more realistic assessment of how companies are going to use and dump them. Loyalty WON'T be rewarded and they know it. It used to be when the boomers were developing their habits.
but anyway- the title is misleading if the last sentence in the summary is true. Big shock-- this is slashdot.
I know right? Management and executives took all their pay 30 years ago while they promised union workers pensions which would have fed into the detroit economy today.
Then after getting their money back then, they used financial chicanery to declare bankruptcy negating the pensions. Then they reopened plants elsewhere with sub-poverty labor costs.
I liked Bernie. I would have voted for Bernie happily.
But if he couldn't beat the most unelectable democratic candidate in years, he had no chance against trump.
Clinton (who I considered unelectable in 2015) beat Bernie without use of the super delegates which were simply icing on the cake. Your position might be more credible if Bernie had beat Clinton in the votes and regular deleges.
I said she put the interests ahead of her own- not that she was stupid. Bernie couldn't beat her. He sure couldn't have beat trump.
I've voting for Clinton because she's competent, qualified, has the temperament, a patriot, and she's smart.
If he had won, she would have done so. The same as she did for Obama.
Doing what you suggest would say we wanted a quitter with no grit for president.
Clinton is a hard fighter who loses with grace.
It's 52% Trump to 12% Clinton for outright lies.
Trump
True12 (4%)(12)
Mostly True32 (12%)(32)
Half True39 (14%)(39)
Mostly False48 (17%)(48)
False97 (35%)(97)
Pants on Fire48 (17%)(48)
Clinton
True60 (23%)(60)
Mostly True73 (28%)(73)
Half True58 (22%)(58)
Mostly False39 (15%)(39)
False27 (10%)(27)
Pants on Fire6 (2%)(6)
Wow. You're serious.
Okay...
1) ALL politicians lie to the american people. And it's not their fault. It's the voter's fault.
Almost all politicians lie 25% to 33% of the time.
A majority of these are lies of omission (about 66% to 75%).
But about a quarter to a third of their lies are bald faced flat out howlers.
2) Various fact checking sites show that Clinton lies a little less than other politicians on average. Probably not because she's noble but because she knows everything she says will be fact checked. Most of her lies are unprovable, "I can't recall" or lies of omission.
3) Trump lies (provably) over 70% of the time. And he lacks the cleverness to lie by omission. Most of his lies are bald faced howlers. When called on his lies he a) attacks the interviewer (and he's mostly retreated to the safety of sean hannity now to avoid this) b) immediately covers the lie with several other lies, or c) changes the subject. If lying is important to you- Trump verifiably lies 2-3 times more than Clinton.
4) In the debate, Trump lied 34 times- Clinton lied 4 times. I think two of her lies were kinda weak. In any case, trump lied almost an order of magnitude more than Trump.
5) And the entire point of the Debate was to set Pence up to either a) agree that trump lied or b) provide a lovely attack ad which shows Pence lying AND also reminds the public of Trump's lies, insults, and word salads. I WANT a president who is clever enough to box an opponent in with lateral thinking like that. I don't want a president who can be baited with a tweet or set preening with a lame complement by a hostile foreign leader.
I think Clinton is typically flawed for washington senators, representatives and similarly powerful bureacratic positions.
I had to research her a lot this year and
1) Cinton's been the target of a propaganda war for close to 20 years. This would destroy most people.
2) The clinton foundation is very well run, has a much higher share of money that goes to help people than the american cancer society, has reasonable wages for its employees, and is highly rated by charity navigator.
3) Clinton's actions show she is willing to put the good of the party and the country ahead of her personal good.
4) Clinton's a patriot and even a bit of a nationalist.
5) Clinton's wonky, intelligent, and creative and open to feedback from staff. She is more of a cooperative than authoritarian leader but has the strength to make decisions and stick by them.
I think if you dig into her history on non conservative sites, you'll find the same things.
Personally, I thought she was unelectable but, you know... Trump.
You are right... it's since 1990. So 26 years.
The H1b Minimum salary was set at $60,000 in 1990. That's $110,000 today adjusted for inflation.
And that's probably why bills submitted to congress to set a new minimum are written with $110,000.
Good point.
I think instead of being $110,000, it should be top 10% income. That would adjust automatically.