If they don't want to be taken for idiots then perhaps they could open up a bit on what really happened. It sounds like the student was called to answer for her supposed crimes while not given any time to build a defense. She probably forgot about the weekend trip until she dug into her schedule for the months prior. Do you remember where you spent every weekend for the past year? When she did bring up evidence in her defense then they dismissed it as something she likely doctored.
This looks like a kangaroo court. They were embarrassed about their grades being altered for so long without being detected and so they wanted to find a "mastermind" behind it all to pin it on.
I'm guessing that if they did a real look at what was happening that they'd find a handful of people selling grades. They will likely disappear now, since doing anything after Filler was so publicly punished would only make them look harder.
I'm willing to consider that Filler was in on the deal. Given what was in the article I doubt she acted alone.
Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last 90 years so...
What does Nazism have to do with conservatism?
Yes, it would be less controversial to filter out Nazism. What that does though is remove the premise that Facebook is merely a communications conduit. As soon as they start filtering out information that they do not agree with then they should lose any protections similar to those granted to phone companies. A phone company cannot be held liable for communications they transmit because the phone companies aren't trying to correct misinformation translated down their wires. If they did then they could be held liable for the misinformation that got through.
If FaceBook wants to be a conduit for information then they need to stay out of the editorializing on what is said. If they do want to get in that game then they need to publish clear rules on what is acceptable and what is not.
"Date stamps are easy to edit," said Knoll. "In fact, the photos you shared with me clearly include an 'edit' button in the upper corner for this exact purpose," she wrote, referring to the iPhone software's native photo editing feature. "Why wait until after you'd been informed that you were going to be expelled to show me months' old photos?" she said.
Why show the photos any earlier? It sounds like she didn't know she would be expelled until she was accused of this hacking. What did this genius expect? That Filler would just walk up randomly to people to share a photo of her on a weekend trip? I mean, would that not be MORE suspicious? "Excuse me, just in case you might in the future accuse me of hacking the university computers last weekend I thought I'd show photographic evidence I was out of town."
I know these cables cost more than those without USB-C but that's the price you pay to get a smaller port on your portable computing device. If they used the full sized desktop connector then the cables would be cheaper but then you are now carrying a larger device for that larger port.
If you got a proper USB-C display then you often also get what is effectively a laptop dock in the display, where it supplies power to charge your laptop and additional ports for things like mouse, keyboard, and Ethernet.
USB-C to replace the old HDMI and mini-DisplayPort ports was a good choice in my opinion. The USB-C ports are smaller and allow for other benefits such as power to be drawn from the display for charging. The only competition I see in this space is the even rarer SuperMHL connector.
Think of the person buying their first computer, or a second computer while keeping their first. These people will be buying cables and accessories for this computer. Why put old ports on a new computer? The only accessories that I can think of that don't come in USB-C versions are keyboards and mice, which are not needed all that often on a laptop anyway.
Tell me, what are you plugging in?
If it's a display then there are cables for USB-C to whatever port you will find on a new display. If you need a dongle for VGA then it's time to get a new display. I expect soon to see USB-C inputs on displays for power and video, and supporting DisplayPort and/or HDMI protocol on that port. If it's a device with a USB-B port then don't buy a dongle, buy the right cable. If it's got a captive cable, like a mouse or keyboard, then I can understand the need for a dongle. I have an optical drive with a captive cable, but I don't use this often.
If you are using four dongles regularly then I'm thinking you should have bought a dock. Docks with just Ethernet, one USB-C (often only for power) and a trio of USB-A ports are small and cheap.
Using four dongles just sounds like choosing poorly on laptop cables and/or accessories.
Why'd they get rid of magsafe in the first place? Seems like a keen idea, what's the catch?
Here's one guess, they had a lot of problems with a lot of Magsafe power supplies. Mostly the cords were failing on them and they had to replace a lot of them. They likely just thought they'd do better with using USB-C than trying to get MagSafe to work right.
Another guess, people complained that MagSafe wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Laptops got real light and MagSafe actually pulled laptops off tables. Make the magnet weaker and now the weight of the cable can pull it loose.
One more guess, people didn't like the idea of being locked in to Apple only power cables when other manufacturers were now switching to the industry standard USB-C.
As I recall Dell and Lenovo allow for the use of their old power cables as well as USB-C to power their laptops, especially on the higher end. I'd like to see Apple do this, MagSafe and USB-C charging on new laptops.
I took this "MacBook hierarchy of needs" thought as a more general wish list for a laptop. I don't believe it's as much about Apple laptops specifically but shopping for a laptop generally.
Leave the fanboys out of this. What is your wish list on a laptop? Now, hand that wish list to a number of laptop manufacturers and see how many will grant your wishes. Maybe it's Apple, maybe it's not.
It's fine to think that you can just go somewhere else but, what if nobody makes a laptop that fits your hierarchy of needs?
I like the choice to go with USB-C/Thunderbolt. I understand why Apple did this.
People complained about the loss of the SDXC slot but I think I used it just once or twice in the years I had my old laptop. The lack of HDMI port and replacing it with video on USB-C doesn't bother me much either, especially since HDMI doesn't (or at least didn't at the time) support the higher resolutions that Thunderbolt or DisplayPort gives. Cables from USB-C to HDMI/DisplayPort/whatever don't seem to cost all that much more than HDMI or DisplayPort cables. I didn't much like the expense of a Thunderbolt 2 adapter but, again, this is expected with a switch to something faster. People seem most vocal about the loss of the USB-A ports, and that does suck a bit at first but buying a trio of adapters is about $25. Complaints about a lack of an Ethernet port just don't compute for me. Ethernet ports have been MIA on laptops for a while, or so it seems. USB to Ethernet adapters are cheap and small if you really really need them, with WiFi being nearly ubiquitous now I find few cases where they are needed. I've seen the poorly implemented attempts to preserve the Ethernet port and still keeping the computer thin, and I'd much rather it just not be there.
What there is no proper adapter for is the MagSafe port. Sure, there are cables that approximate the MagSafe but then there is a little "nub" hanging off the computer. Removing this nub can mean it getting lost, either inside the laptop bag or just lost permanently. I haven't lost mine yet but I can see that happening. With most other USB-C uses you are tethered to a table or desk. People want a laptop on their lap, and to get it on one's lap and off again means moving it. Often in ways that might tangle the power cord. MagSafe means such tangles won't damage the computer.
I want MagSafe back. Don't lose the power by USB-C, keep that because that means retaining compatibility with third party chargers. I've seen other laptop makers have USB-C charging while keeping whatever legacy power port they had. Apple should be able to figure this out. I had convinced myself that removing MagSafe was a good idea but I changed my mind. I want it back now. Maybe it doesn't need to be the same MagSafe they used before, but that would be nice. I don't know if MagSafe maxed out at 85 watts but that was the largest at the time. Maybe get a version that could handle 100 watts like USB-C, or more.
It's called "gender reassignment surgery" and it is carried out thousands of times a year. Only delusional lunatics such as yourself do not believe somethjing that happens thousands of times a year is impossible and can never happen.
I don't believe that anyone is denying these surgeries happen. You can call it anything you like but in the end it's still castration. I hear of people trying to bring awareness for female genital mutilation, another thing that happens thousands of time every year. That's being generous, it probably happens far more often than that. We consider this barbaric, unnecessary, brutal, criminal, and more, as we should. When this happens to men and we wrap this up in the euphemism of "gender reassignment surgery" then we celebrate it.
There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned". For every woman that decides to get "reassigned" there are 9 men that do the same, so this is largely a matter of men allowing themselves to be castrated. We've gone beyond just castrating men psychologically by declaring young boys as damaged girls, or treating any man as a potential rapist instead of a potential husband. That wasn't enough, now we celebrate the medical castration of men. We wrap it up in happy mouth noises and consider ourselves to be "helpful" in removing a man's ability to reproduce.
This is a sick society that celebrates the castration of healthy men. This will not end well.
With my previous reply I didn't notice the subject line, "Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts."
What an interesting way to introduce a rant on my supposed failure to understand that gender is not binary. Are you attacking my masculinity? Claiming I don't "have the balls" to answer your question? Maybe I have balls and wish I didn't, like Manning, and you have just damaged my psyche for reminding me of that. Maybe I don't have balls and wish I did, and you insulted me for my lack of "manliness" when I define myself as a man.
You want to rant on me for not understanding that there is a spectrum on which gender lies when using such an obviously emasculating insult? I should have simply not answered an AC. Now I must answer again to correct for my previous oversight.
The next time you want to make an argument on how there is a gender spectrum it might help to not start off with a demand to "man up".
That you cannot and will not answer shows that your idiotic claims about simple binary gender (because your brain cannot handle complexity beyond a simple two option choice) do not fit with reality.
I did answer your question. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I didn't answer it.
Either Chelsea Manning cannot change gender therefore she was always female, but mislabeled before, or she can change. No case exists where she is not now a female.
There is a case where Manning is not now a female. Manning entered the US Army as a male. Since the US Army does check for physical health upon enlistment we can be quite certain that the disorders mentioned earlier do not apply. Manning cannot change gender, that is true. What this means is that Manning was male then and is male now.
That you have to make claims about some factor like a fucking half-bred ignoramus and insist it makes reality and cannot change but, when some case doesn't fit your catastrophically limited assertion, you have to go "but that doesn't count!!!". Look up "special pleading", ask a grown up for help with the big words.
I did look up "special pleading". Now you go look up "ad hominem". Your argument is that I must be a "fucking half-bred ignoramus" that cannot understand "big words".
I can follow that there can be a special case for people that don't fit nicely in a gender binary. Manning simply is not one of these people. He was a healthy man that has now opted to mutilate himself thinking this will somehow make him a woman. That's not how things work.
Bringing up the special case of people that don't fit in a male/female binary and try to apply that to Manning does not follow. Manning is still a man that has chosen to mutilate himself. As I said before such people should be treated with compassion and kindness. That compassion and kindness should not include allowing a person to mutilate himself in an attempt to become something he is not. What we should do is treat this mental illness as best we can.
If macOS were free, they would let anyone install it on any compatible hardware.
That's what Apple does now. They just define "compatible" as the hardware they sell. If you want to get it to run on something they don't make then don't expect them to come running to fix any problems you have.
Microsoft is no different. They publish a list of system requirements on how they define "compatible". If you got something not on that list then you are on your own. Same for your Linux distribution of choice, or your favorite flavor of BSD.
If you think Apple's software really is free, you know nothing about how businesses work.
You think Linux is free? Well, it's got it's own definition of "free" I guess. If you want someone to call if something doesn't work then you need to pay for that. With Apple this is paid by purchasing their hardware.
Here's something that bothers me. To me a political party is nothing more than a club one can join. They are clubs with political influence, like many clubs do. They are clubs that endorse candidates for office, again like many do. They are clubs that fund campaigns, again many clubs will do this.
Now, why can't I be a member of both the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party? If I declare membership in one then I'm automatically ousted from the other.
I should be able to vote in the primary/caucus of both parties. Such voting does not violate the "one person, one vote" rule because it's not a general election. These party votes are to determine which party supports which candidate.
This is collusion, straight up. If the Democrat Party can't stop this collusion with the Republican Party then they both deserve to be broken up.
The breakup of the two parties is not likely any time soon. I understand that the dynamics of "first past the post" voting favors the development of two major parties. That should still not permit the collusion between the parties where they prevent people from being a member of both at the same time.
What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?
Does Manning have any of those conditions? All indications are that he does not. Manning is still a male, even if he goes through hormone replacement and a gelding.
People with the disorders you describe are a very small portion of the population. These people deserve compassion for their condition and to be treated as the gender they feel most comfortable presenting themselves to the public. We cannot upend our definitions of male and female because of a handful of exceedingly rare genetic disorders.
On the other hand those in generally good physical health should not be allowed to remove healthy organs because they suffer from a mental disorder. Allowing people to live a lie that they are some other gender than what they were born is not good for their own mental health, or the public's mental health. Why do we allow these people to mutilate themselves when there is obviously nothing physically wrong with them? Those that are obviously not suffering from some disorder of sexual development should not be allowed to undergo surgery just as we prevent people with body integrity dysphoria to amputate their legs or hands.
At least with body integrity dysphoria the surgery would actually make them what they want to be, an amputee. Cutting away healthy tissue on a man does not make the man into a woman. It makes the man a damaged man. Treating gender dysphoria with "transition" surgery is quite barbaric. I believe that in time we will see the damage this method of "treatment" has done to those that received this treatment. This will take decades to find out how much damage has been done as the artificial hormone treatments are still experimental, as are the cosmetic surgeries they have undergone.
If an adult wants to render himself or herself infertile then that is their choice. What I find unfathomable is parents being allowed to neuter their own children. That's child abuse and borderline demonic. If someone wants to see their family line end with them and their children then I can get some consolation in that whatever mental illness or anti-social norms they have engendered will die with them. We should be kind and compassionate to these people, not live in their fantasy world.
If Manning wasn't transgendered then he'd still be in prison. The only reason he got out is because some people made enough noise about a woman trapped in a man's prison.
This is otherwise a quite simple case of a US Army private making a serious enough violation of the rules on handling secret documents that he could have got the death penalty. Now that "she" is out of prison there's discussion of "her medical complications". What would those "medical complications" be? That "she" has a penis?
Without those "medical complications" this would not be a story.
It seems nobody wants plastic bags. My curbside recycling won't take it. When I took a collection of plastic bags to a recycling center I was told to throw them in the trash, so that's what I do now.
I recycle other plastics, paper, metal, and glass with regularity. The thin plastic bags just end up in the landfill. I think they should be burned but to make that worthwhile would require enough volume of plastic and paper. Recycling plastics is stupid, my chemistry professor in college convinced me of that. Recycling paper is of questionable value.
The problem with debit cards attached to a savings account is one case of a fraudulent payment can clear a person out.
There's all kinds of cases of this kind of fraud if you look for them. Such as a crooked cab driver charging "$66.00" for a ride but ends up as "$6600.00" when it shows on their statement. Now, how can this be reversed? They got the money and they are not going to give it back without a fight. That's assuming they didn't leave the state/country/planet in this time just to make things more difficult.
Oh, and if you believe fax machines are gone then you don't deal with government agencies with any regularity. They love their fax machines.
I haven't written a personal check in a very long time. I do get them sent to me once in a while. When I needed a check recently it's been for a large purchase and in that case I just went to the bank to get them to print one for me. The recipient usually appreciates this as it means the money has been set aside first and it won't bounce. Going to the bank for a check was just easier than finding my checkbook, my bank is very close to home.
I remember a conversation with one of my co-workers about a silly membership rule he ran into. He was passing through a "dry" county somewhere and wanted a drink at the end of his day. He found a random bar and sat down to ask for a drink. The lady asked if he was a member as only members could be served alcohol. He said we was not, then asked how to become a member. The lady said it was X dollars (about the price of a beer) and the first drink is free. So he pays for his membership and got his membership card as a napkin under his glass of beer.
If the laws on membership and paying with a credit card are similar then have a similar membership rule as this "gentleman's club" in that dry county. If you aren't a member then make membership $15 with a bonus of $15 off their first purchase. If it's someone that just wants a burger and a beer than might otherwise cost $13.50 then they would either get people to pay the $15 just so that they can eat and be on their way, or order a dessert too to get above the $15 limit. Just have the "membership card" print out with the receipt.
I can imagine that in fact many shops, especially the small "mom and pop" shops, would use a creative membership rule to get around the law. The stores affected would likely be large chains that don't want to bother with such "creativity".
Nuclear can't compete with cheap natural gas right now.
No, it's wind and solar subsidies killing nuclear power right now. Here's just one of many recent articles discussing the issue: https://www.city-journal.org/a...
Nuclear and natural gas don't really compete with each other. Nuclear is a base load electrical source, and that's about all it can do. Natural gas is far more versatile, being used for base load power in combined cycle power plants, peaking power in single cycle power plants, as heating for industrial and residential spaces, cooking fuel, vehicle fuel, feed stock for a number of chemicals, and I'm probably missing a lot. The one other place that nuclear power is used with any regularity is a very small market, naval propulsion.
Because of the "cheap" wind and solar we are seeing natural gas power plants being predominately the quick to cycle on and off single cycle type. These are not cheaper than nuclear power. Even the combined cycle plants aren't all that cheap compared to nuclear, the margin between the two is small and it would likely take just a small shift in the energy markets to flip the two.
I keep being "corrected" on how wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources we have available to us. Okay then, what's stopping them from dominating the market? Why do they continue to demand government subsidies? Why did I see on the news tonight that a local utility was hiking their rates to pay for more wind and solar? If wind and solar is cheaper than everything else then the utilities would not be raising rates. If it's cheaper then the utilities should not be forced to raise their rates by government mandates to use more wind and solar.
Nuclear and natural gas don't compete, they overlap a bit but that doesn't define competition. Solar and wind doesn't compete with natural gas either. If it wasn't for cheap natural gas then we wouldn't even be considering solar and wind, we need that natural gas to provide power when the wind is calm and the solar panels are under 2 feet of snow.
Nuclear is being legislated out of existence. It won't work. In the end we need energy and when the promise of a solar and wind powered future fails then we will build more nuclear power plants again. We have already seen it fail to launch, even with the path cleared of the competition as best they could.
You pro-nuclear people think the only power source in the world is either Coal or Nuclear.
Given that the world has been powered by coal and nuclear for nearly a century now it's kind of difficult to imagine otherwise. Solar and wind has promised to replace both for 50 years or more. When can we expect this transition to actually happen?
If "you solar and wind people" actually believed what you claim, that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, then why the mandates for subsidies and bans on new nuclear? Let the market play out. If you believed what you say then why the need for slanting the playing field in your favor through legislation?
I've always been bothered that all police in the US carry guns - where in general the police in the UK don't, at lest in the England of my youth.
I've been bothered with the idea that the police in the UK don't carry guns. There's a near complete ban on the private ownership of guns in the UK but does that stop the criminals from being armed? I seem to recall a few instances of people using knives and vehicles as weapons. Sure would be comforting to know that at least the police were able to shoot the assailant sooner rather than later, and minimize the death and destruction.
Getting back on the topic of being tracked by automation. If you want this to stop then we need to do something about the infrastructure built that allows this tracking. You want the police to stop tracking your movement by car? Then let's get rid of things like license plates and licenses to drive. Oh, you think that would make us less safe? With people not needing a license to drive? Well, take your pick. Do you want freedom or safety? I know that is something of a false dichotomy, as there is likely some room for a middle ground. Okay then, where is it?
I'm saying that if the police tracking bothers you then let's not make it so easy with a plainly visible identifying plate on the car, that registers the owner (and highly likely driver) with the government. Then with another government registry where the drivers are kept, with pictures, identifying features, address, signature, etc. to further allow the tracking.
Here's a problem with those databases that few people will discuss. Licensing does not stop bad drivers from driving. Enforcement stops bad drivers. People drive without licenses, without insurance, and without car registration, all the time. How many? Nobody knows because they are not registered any where. Best guess is that it is in the millions in the USA. So long as they follow the rules of the road then they are not likely to get caught. If these people follow the rules then tell me why I should care if they haven't got their "papers in order"?
You don't like the police state? Then let's get serious about how far it has already come. Let's cut it off at the knees and put an end to the databases full of people that have not broken any laws. No more licenses to drive and no more license plates on cars. Get the paper pushers out of DMV offices and instead get law enforcement on the streets where they can actually stop those that do real harm.
Oh, and about getting rid of paper pushers that do nothing to keep us safe... We are seeing many states this years get rid of licenses to carry concealed weapons. There's 15 states now that do not require "papers in order" for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon in public. And we are likely to see another 1 or 2 before the year ends. The average American citizen is better armed than the average British bobby.
Oh, and before someone replies on how Americans shoot each other more than in any other "civilized" nation remember this, America is not a single nation with a single set of gun laws. It is a federation of states, each with their own different gun laws. There is no connection between the murders in Illinois and New York and the gun laws in New Hampshire and Wyoming.
I keep hearing on how weather is not climate. Especially now that here in the Midwest we are seeing record setting snowfalls and record setting low temperatures. Yet in the article they claim Australia's heat is evidence of global warming.
So what if Australia saw record high temperatures? This is a weather event, not global warming.
If anyone insists that this is indicative of global warming then every record low temperature must be counted as evidence against it. Now, make up your mind. Is weather the same as climate? If so I got lots of frosty white evidence of global cooling in my front yard for you to see. Is weather different than climate? Then this record setting temperature in Australia is a local news event at best. I shouldn't care about Australia's heat any more than they care about my wind chill numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
The public rifle range near me has a sign saying they close at sunset. I don't recall when it opens.
If they don't want to be taken for idiots then perhaps they could open up a bit on what really happened. It sounds like the student was called to answer for her supposed crimes while not given any time to build a defense. She probably forgot about the weekend trip until she dug into her schedule for the months prior. Do you remember where you spent every weekend for the past year? When she did bring up evidence in her defense then they dismissed it as something she likely doctored.
This looks like a kangaroo court. They were embarrassed about their grades being altered for so long without being detected and so they wanted to find a "mastermind" behind it all to pin it on.
I'm guessing that if they did a real look at what was happening that they'd find a handful of people selling grades. They will likely disappear now, since doing anything after Filler was so publicly punished would only make them look harder.
I'm willing to consider that Filler was in on the deal. Given what was in the article I doubt she acted alone.
Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last 90 years so...
What does Nazism have to do with conservatism?
Yes, it would be less controversial to filter out Nazism. What that does though is remove the premise that Facebook is merely a communications conduit. As soon as they start filtering out information that they do not agree with then they should lose any protections similar to those granted to phone companies. A phone company cannot be held liable for communications they transmit because the phone companies aren't trying to correct misinformation translated down their wires. If they did then they could be held liable for the misinformation that got through.
If FaceBook wants to be a conduit for information then they need to stay out of the editorializing on what is said. If they do want to get in that game then they need to publish clear rules on what is acceptable and what is not.
"Date stamps are easy to edit," said Knoll. "In fact, the photos you shared with me clearly include an 'edit' button in the upper corner for this exact purpose," she wrote, referring to the iPhone software's native photo editing feature. "Why wait until after you'd been informed that you were going to be expelled to show me months' old photos?" she said.
Why show the photos any earlier? It sounds like she didn't know she would be expelled until she was accused of this hacking. What did this genius expect? That Filler would just walk up randomly to people to share a photo of her on a weekend trip? I mean, would that not be MORE suspicious? "Excuse me, just in case you might in the future accuse me of hacking the university computers last weekend I thought I'd show photographic evidence I was out of town."
I thought these people worked at a school.
Not a PRO device if you can not do PRO workloads on it. (think rendering overnight)
Overnight rendering on a laptop? You are doing it wrong.
Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. This article was easy enough to find: https://www.imore.com/best-usb...
Perhaps better option for now is just buying the right cable.
USB Type C to HDMI 3.1 Cable: https://www.monoprice.com/prod...
USB Type C to DisplayPort 3.1 Cable: https://www.monoprice.com/prod...
I know these cables cost more than those without USB-C but that's the price you pay to get a smaller port on your portable computing device. If they used the full sized desktop connector then the cables would be cheaper but then you are now carrying a larger device for that larger port.
If you got a proper USB-C display then you often also get what is effectively a laptop dock in the display, where it supplies power to charge your laptop and additional ports for things like mouse, keyboard, and Ethernet.
USB-C to replace the old HDMI and mini-DisplayPort ports was a good choice in my opinion. The USB-C ports are smaller and allow for other benefits such as power to be drawn from the display for charging. The only competition I see in this space is the even rarer SuperMHL connector.
Think of the person buying their first computer, or a second computer while keeping their first. These people will be buying cables and accessories for this computer. Why put old ports on a new computer? The only accessories that I can think of that don't come in USB-C versions are keyboards and mice, which are not needed all that often on a laptop anyway.
Tell me, what are you plugging in?
If it's a display then there are cables for USB-C to whatever port you will find on a new display. If you need a dongle for VGA then it's time to get a new display. I expect soon to see USB-C inputs on displays for power and video, and supporting DisplayPort and/or HDMI protocol on that port. If it's a device with a USB-B port then don't buy a dongle, buy the right cable. If it's got a captive cable, like a mouse or keyboard, then I can understand the need for a dongle. I have an optical drive with a captive cable, but I don't use this often.
If you are using four dongles regularly then I'm thinking you should have bought a dock. Docks with just Ethernet, one USB-C (often only for power) and a trio of USB-A ports are small and cheap.
Using four dongles just sounds like choosing poorly on laptop cables and/or accessories.
Why'd they get rid of magsafe in the first place? Seems like a keen idea, what's the catch?
Here's one guess, they had a lot of problems with a lot of Magsafe power supplies. Mostly the cords were failing on them and they had to replace a lot of them. They likely just thought they'd do better with using USB-C than trying to get MagSafe to work right.
Another guess, people complained that MagSafe wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Laptops got real light and MagSafe actually pulled laptops off tables. Make the magnet weaker and now the weight of the cable can pull it loose.
One more guess, people didn't like the idea of being locked in to Apple only power cables when other manufacturers were now switching to the industry standard USB-C.
As I recall Dell and Lenovo allow for the use of their old power cables as well as USB-C to power their laptops, especially on the higher end. I'd like to see Apple do this, MagSafe and USB-C charging on new laptops.
I took this "MacBook hierarchy of needs" thought as a more general wish list for a laptop. I don't believe it's as much about Apple laptops specifically but shopping for a laptop generally.
Leave the fanboys out of this. What is your wish list on a laptop? Now, hand that wish list to a number of laptop manufacturers and see how many will grant your wishes. Maybe it's Apple, maybe it's not.
It's fine to think that you can just go somewhere else but, what if nobody makes a laptop that fits your hierarchy of needs?
I like the choice to go with USB-C/Thunderbolt. I understand why Apple did this.
People complained about the loss of the SDXC slot but I think I used it just once or twice in the years I had my old laptop. The lack of HDMI port and replacing it with video on USB-C doesn't bother me much either, especially since HDMI doesn't (or at least didn't at the time) support the higher resolutions that Thunderbolt or DisplayPort gives. Cables from USB-C to HDMI/DisplayPort/whatever don't seem to cost all that much more than HDMI or DisplayPort cables. I didn't much like the expense of a Thunderbolt 2 adapter but, again, this is expected with a switch to something faster. People seem most vocal about the loss of the USB-A ports, and that does suck a bit at first but buying a trio of adapters is about $25. Complaints about a lack of an Ethernet port just don't compute for me. Ethernet ports have been MIA on laptops for a while, or so it seems. USB to Ethernet adapters are cheap and small if you really really need them, with WiFi being nearly ubiquitous now I find few cases where they are needed. I've seen the poorly implemented attempts to preserve the Ethernet port and still keeping the computer thin, and I'd much rather it just not be there.
What there is no proper adapter for is the MagSafe port. Sure, there are cables that approximate the MagSafe but then there is a little "nub" hanging off the computer. Removing this nub can mean it getting lost, either inside the laptop bag or just lost permanently. I haven't lost mine yet but I can see that happening. With most other USB-C uses you are tethered to a table or desk. People want a laptop on their lap, and to get it on one's lap and off again means moving it. Often in ways that might tangle the power cord. MagSafe means such tangles won't damage the computer.
I want MagSafe back. Don't lose the power by USB-C, keep that because that means retaining compatibility with third party chargers. I've seen other laptop makers have USB-C charging while keeping whatever legacy power port they had. Apple should be able to figure this out. I had convinced myself that removing MagSafe was a good idea but I changed my mind. I want it back now. Maybe it doesn't need to be the same MagSafe they used before, but that would be nice. I don't know if MagSafe maxed out at 85 watts but that was the largest at the time. Maybe get a version that could handle 100 watts like USB-C, or more.
It's called "gender reassignment surgery" and it is carried out thousands of times a year. Only delusional lunatics such as yourself do not believe somethjing that happens thousands of times a year is impossible and can never happen.
I don't believe that anyone is denying these surgeries happen. You can call it anything you like but in the end it's still castration. I hear of people trying to bring awareness for female genital mutilation, another thing that happens thousands of time every year. That's being generous, it probably happens far more often than that. We consider this barbaric, unnecessary, brutal, criminal, and more, as we should. When this happens to men and we wrap this up in the euphemism of "gender reassignment surgery" then we celebrate it.
There is an attack on masculinity, and men are choosing to hand in their "man card" and get "reassigned". For every woman that decides to get "reassigned" there are 9 men that do the same, so this is largely a matter of men allowing themselves to be castrated. We've gone beyond just castrating men psychologically by declaring young boys as damaged girls, or treating any man as a potential rapist instead of a potential husband. That wasn't enough, now we celebrate the medical castration of men. We wrap it up in happy mouth noises and consider ourselves to be "helpful" in removing a man's ability to reproduce.
This is a sick society that celebrates the castration of healthy men. This will not end well.
With my previous reply I didn't notice the subject line, "Answer the fucking quesiton, no-nuts."
What an interesting way to introduce a rant on my supposed failure to understand that gender is not binary. Are you attacking my masculinity? Claiming I don't "have the balls" to answer your question? Maybe I have balls and wish I didn't, like Manning, and you have just damaged my psyche for reminding me of that. Maybe I don't have balls and wish I did, and you insulted me for my lack of "manliness" when I define myself as a man.
You want to rant on me for not understanding that there is a spectrum on which gender lies when using such an obviously emasculating insult? I should have simply not answered an AC. Now I must answer again to correct for my previous oversight.
The next time you want to make an argument on how there is a gender spectrum it might help to not start off with a demand to "man up".
That you cannot and will not answer shows that your idiotic claims about simple binary gender (because your brain cannot handle complexity beyond a simple two option choice) do not fit with reality.
I did answer your question. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I didn't answer it.
Either Chelsea Manning cannot change gender therefore she was always female, but mislabeled before, or she can change. No case exists where she is not now a female.
There is a case where Manning is not now a female. Manning entered the US Army as a male. Since the US Army does check for physical health upon enlistment we can be quite certain that the disorders mentioned earlier do not apply. Manning cannot change gender, that is true. What this means is that Manning was male then and is male now.
That you have to make claims about some factor like a fucking half-bred ignoramus and insist it makes reality and cannot change but, when some case doesn't fit your catastrophically limited assertion, you have to go "but that doesn't count!!!". Look up "special pleading", ask a grown up for help with the big words.
I did look up "special pleading". Now you go look up "ad hominem". Your argument is that I must be a "fucking half-bred ignoramus" that cannot understand "big words".
I can follow that there can be a special case for people that don't fit nicely in a gender binary. Manning simply is not one of these people. He was a healthy man that has now opted to mutilate himself thinking this will somehow make him a woman. That's not how things work.
Bringing up the special case of people that don't fit in a male/female binary and try to apply that to Manning does not follow. Manning is still a man that has chosen to mutilate himself. As I said before such people should be treated with compassion and kindness. That compassion and kindness should not include allowing a person to mutilate himself in an attempt to become something he is not. What we should do is treat this mental illness as best we can.
If macOS were free, they would let anyone install it on any compatible hardware.
That's what Apple does now. They just define "compatible" as the hardware they sell. If you want to get it to run on something they don't make then don't expect them to come running to fix any problems you have.
Microsoft is no different. They publish a list of system requirements on how they define "compatible". If you got something not on that list then you are on your own. Same for your Linux distribution of choice, or your favorite flavor of BSD.
If you think Apple's software really is free, you know nothing about how businesses work.
You think Linux is free? Well, it's got it's own definition of "free" I guess. If you want someone to call if something doesn't work then you need to pay for that. With Apple this is paid by purchasing their hardware.
I wonder if you understand how businesses work.
Let's breakup the Democrat Party.
Here's something that bothers me. To me a political party is nothing more than a club one can join. They are clubs with political influence, like many clubs do. They are clubs that endorse candidates for office, again like many do. They are clubs that fund campaigns, again many clubs will do this.
Now, why can't I be a member of both the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party? If I declare membership in one then I'm automatically ousted from the other.
I should be able to vote in the primary/caucus of both parties. Such voting does not violate the "one person, one vote" rule because it's not a general election. These party votes are to determine which party supports which candidate.
This is collusion, straight up. If the Democrat Party can't stop this collusion with the Republican Party then they both deserve to be broken up.
The breakup of the two parties is not likely any time soon. I understand that the dynamics of "first past the post" voting favors the development of two major parties. That should still not permit the collusion between the parties where they prevent people from being a member of both at the same time.
What about people born with XX Male Syndrome(physically male with XX), Swyer syndrome(physically female with XY), or 46,XX DSD(physically male with XX)?
Does Manning have any of those conditions? All indications are that he does not. Manning is still a male, even if he goes through hormone replacement and a gelding.
People with the disorders you describe are a very small portion of the population. These people deserve compassion for their condition and to be treated as the gender they feel most comfortable presenting themselves to the public. We cannot upend our definitions of male and female because of a handful of exceedingly rare genetic disorders.
On the other hand those in generally good physical health should not be allowed to remove healthy organs because they suffer from a mental disorder. Allowing people to live a lie that they are some other gender than what they were born is not good for their own mental health, or the public's mental health. Why do we allow these people to mutilate themselves when there is obviously nothing physically wrong with them? Those that are obviously not suffering from some disorder of sexual development should not be allowed to undergo surgery just as we prevent people with body integrity dysphoria to amputate their legs or hands.
At least with body integrity dysphoria the surgery would actually make them what they want to be, an amputee. Cutting away healthy tissue on a man does not make the man into a woman. It makes the man a damaged man. Treating gender dysphoria with "transition" surgery is quite barbaric. I believe that in time we will see the damage this method of "treatment" has done to those that received this treatment. This will take decades to find out how much damage has been done as the artificial hormone treatments are still experimental, as are the cosmetic surgeries they have undergone.
If an adult wants to render himself or herself infertile then that is their choice. What I find unfathomable is parents being allowed to neuter their own children. That's child abuse and borderline demonic. If someone wants to see their family line end with them and their children then I can get some consolation in that whatever mental illness or anti-social norms they have engendered will die with them. We should be kind and compassionate to these people, not live in their fantasy world.
If Manning wasn't transgendered then he'd still be in prison. The only reason he got out is because some people made enough noise about a woman trapped in a man's prison.
This is otherwise a quite simple case of a US Army private making a serious enough violation of the rules on handling secret documents that he could have got the death penalty. Now that "she" is out of prison there's discussion of "her medical complications". What would those "medical complications" be? That "she" has a penis?
Without those "medical complications" this would not be a story.
It seems nobody wants plastic bags. My curbside recycling won't take it. When I took a collection of plastic bags to a recycling center I was told to throw them in the trash, so that's what I do now.
I recycle other plastics, paper, metal, and glass with regularity. The thin plastic bags just end up in the landfill. I think they should be burned but to make that worthwhile would require enough volume of plastic and paper. Recycling plastics is stupid, my chemistry professor in college convinced me of that. Recycling paper is of questionable value.
The problem with debit cards attached to a savings account is one case of a fraudulent payment can clear a person out.
There's all kinds of cases of this kind of fraud if you look for them. Such as a crooked cab driver charging "$66.00" for a ride but ends up as "$6600.00" when it shows on their statement. Now, how can this be reversed? They got the money and they are not going to give it back without a fight. That's assuming they didn't leave the state/country/planet in this time just to make things more difficult.
Oh, and if you believe fax machines are gone then you don't deal with government agencies with any regularity. They love their fax machines.
I haven't written a personal check in a very long time. I do get them sent to me once in a while. When I needed a check recently it's been for a large purchase and in that case I just went to the bank to get them to print one for me. The recipient usually appreciates this as it means the money has been set aside first and it won't bounce. Going to the bank for a check was just easier than finding my checkbook, my bank is very close to home.
I remember a conversation with one of my co-workers about a silly membership rule he ran into. He was passing through a "dry" county somewhere and wanted a drink at the end of his day. He found a random bar and sat down to ask for a drink. The lady asked if he was a member as only members could be served alcohol. He said we was not, then asked how to become a member. The lady said it was X dollars (about the price of a beer) and the first drink is free. So he pays for his membership and got his membership card as a napkin under his glass of beer.
If the laws on membership and paying with a credit card are similar then have a similar membership rule as this "gentleman's club" in that dry county. If you aren't a member then make membership $15 with a bonus of $15 off their first purchase. If it's someone that just wants a burger and a beer than might otherwise cost $13.50 then they would either get people to pay the $15 just so that they can eat and be on their way, or order a dessert too to get above the $15 limit. Just have the "membership card" print out with the receipt.
I can imagine that in fact many shops, especially the small "mom and pop" shops, would use a creative membership rule to get around the law. The stores affected would likely be large chains that don't want to bother with such "creativity".
Helen Caldicott? Is that you?
I'm thinking a village in Australia is missing their idiot.
Nuclear can't compete with cheap natural gas right now.
No, it's wind and solar subsidies killing nuclear power right now. Here's just one of many recent articles discussing the issue:
https://www.city-journal.org/a...
Nuclear and natural gas don't really compete with each other. Nuclear is a base load electrical source, and that's about all it can do. Natural gas is far more versatile, being used for base load power in combined cycle power plants, peaking power in single cycle power plants, as heating for industrial and residential spaces, cooking fuel, vehicle fuel, feed stock for a number of chemicals, and I'm probably missing a lot. The one other place that nuclear power is used with any regularity is a very small market, naval propulsion.
Because of the "cheap" wind and solar we are seeing natural gas power plants being predominately the quick to cycle on and off single cycle type. These are not cheaper than nuclear power. Even the combined cycle plants aren't all that cheap compared to nuclear, the margin between the two is small and it would likely take just a small shift in the energy markets to flip the two.
I keep being "corrected" on how wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources we have available to us. Okay then, what's stopping them from dominating the market? Why do they continue to demand government subsidies? Why did I see on the news tonight that a local utility was hiking their rates to pay for more wind and solar? If wind and solar is cheaper than everything else then the utilities would not be raising rates. If it's cheaper then the utilities should not be forced to raise their rates by government mandates to use more wind and solar.
Nuclear and natural gas don't compete, they overlap a bit but that doesn't define competition. Solar and wind doesn't compete with natural gas either. If it wasn't for cheap natural gas then we wouldn't even be considering solar and wind, we need that natural gas to provide power when the wind is calm and the solar panels are under 2 feet of snow.
Nuclear is being legislated out of existence. It won't work. In the end we need energy and when the promise of a solar and wind powered future fails then we will build more nuclear power plants again. We have already seen it fail to launch, even with the path cleared of the competition as best they could.
You pro-nuclear people think the only power source in the world is either Coal or Nuclear.
Given that the world has been powered by coal and nuclear for nearly a century now it's kind of difficult to imagine otherwise. Solar and wind has promised to replace both for 50 years or more. When can we expect this transition to actually happen?
If "you solar and wind people" actually believed what you claim, that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, then why the mandates for subsidies and bans on new nuclear? Let the market play out. If you believed what you say then why the need for slanting the playing field in your favor through legislation?
I've always been bothered that all police in the US carry guns - where in general the police in the UK don't, at lest in the England of my youth.
I've been bothered with the idea that the police in the UK don't carry guns. There's a near complete ban on the private ownership of guns in the UK but does that stop the criminals from being armed? I seem to recall a few instances of people using knives and vehicles as weapons. Sure would be comforting to know that at least the police were able to shoot the assailant sooner rather than later, and minimize the death and destruction.
Getting back on the topic of being tracked by automation. If you want this to stop then we need to do something about the infrastructure built that allows this tracking. You want the police to stop tracking your movement by car? Then let's get rid of things like license plates and licenses to drive. Oh, you think that would make us less safe? With people not needing a license to drive? Well, take your pick. Do you want freedom or safety? I know that is something of a false dichotomy, as there is likely some room for a middle ground. Okay then, where is it?
I'm saying that if the police tracking bothers you then let's not make it so easy with a plainly visible identifying plate on the car, that registers the owner (and highly likely driver) with the government. Then with another government registry where the drivers are kept, with pictures, identifying features, address, signature, etc. to further allow the tracking.
Here's a problem with those databases that few people will discuss. Licensing does not stop bad drivers from driving. Enforcement stops bad drivers. People drive without licenses, without insurance, and without car registration, all the time. How many? Nobody knows because they are not registered any where. Best guess is that it is in the millions in the USA. So long as they follow the rules of the road then they are not likely to get caught. If these people follow the rules then tell me why I should care if they haven't got their "papers in order"?
You don't like the police state? Then let's get serious about how far it has already come. Let's cut it off at the knees and put an end to the databases full of people that have not broken any laws. No more licenses to drive and no more license plates on cars. Get the paper pushers out of DMV offices and instead get law enforcement on the streets where they can actually stop those that do real harm.
Oh, and about getting rid of paper pushers that do nothing to keep us safe... We are seeing many states this years get rid of licenses to carry concealed weapons. There's 15 states now that do not require "papers in order" for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon in public. And we are likely to see another 1 or 2 before the year ends. The average American citizen is better armed than the average British bobby.
Oh, and before someone replies on how Americans shoot each other more than in any other "civilized" nation remember this, America is not a single nation with a single set of gun laws. It is a federation of states, each with their own different gun laws. There is no connection between the murders in Illinois and New York and the gun laws in New Hampshire and Wyoming.
The whole of the USA has had a "mild" winter?
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
I keep hearing on how weather is not climate. Especially now that here in the Midwest we are seeing record setting snowfalls and record setting low temperatures. Yet in the article they claim Australia's heat is evidence of global warming.
So what if Australia saw record high temperatures? This is a weather event, not global warming.
If anyone insists that this is indicative of global warming then every record low temperature must be counted as evidence against it. Now, make up your mind. Is weather the same as climate? If so I got lots of frosty white evidence of global cooling in my front yard for you to see. Is weather different than climate? Then this record setting temperature in Australia is a local news event at best. I shouldn't care about Australia's heat any more than they care about my wind chill numbers.