"In other words, hate speech is encoraged." I think you mean that free speech is encouraged.
"Today, anyone who stands up for gay marriage is an asshole to many conservatives." As they should. Government sanctioned marriage is a violation of the separation between church and state.
Just so no one is confused on where I stand, the government should not be licensing ANY marriage. Not hetero or homo marriage. Marriage should never be a civil act.
The problem with gay marriage is that the people that want this are forcing anyone authorized to perform the civil act of marriage (such as Christian pastors) to perform a gay marriage. Now you have a case of a government agent (the pastor) refusing to perform a civil act (the marriage) for people recognized by law as free to receive this service (the gay couple). If the gay community had kept their marriage as a purely civil act then there would not be a problem, since they are dragging Christians and Jews into this then people have a problem.
Oddly the gay community isn't dragging the Muslims into this. Maybe it's because the Muslims will hang gays from bridges and cranes.
"To the British, the American colonists who wanted indepedence were âoeassholesâ who didnâ(TM)t know their place under the monarchy, regardless of their lack of representation in the government." Is that kind of like how conservatives are "assholes" for not knowing their place when it comes to gay marriage? Think about the analogy there, and how it worked out for the British. Generally people don't like being told their place.
"Can you explain why that standard should be applied only to Democrats?" I didn't say it should. I said if Democrats want to win they shouldn't put felons on the ballot. The same applies to all other parties.
There is a wing on an Illinois state prison for all the governors doing time right now, all Democrats. Perhaps Democrats in Illinois can get away with felonious candidates and still win elections but that is not likely to translate to every other state and, as shown by those Democrats in jail, they can't always stay in office.
In other words Apple created a computer that could be called balanced, optimal, or efficient. The Mac Pro does not have TB3, 2 storage cards, and so on. If they add such things in a future design, and fail to also add a 2nd CPU then you may have a point.
My solution was to get prescription sunglasses. However the sunglasses are polarized so I have to hold my electronics just so or the screen goes dark from the cross polarization.
Trump has changed the game. If he can win, so can Harris.
Trump didn't file an amicus brief stating that people don't have the right of self defense. Trump didn't knowingly cover up perjury. If Democrats want to win elections then they need to go find people that haven't been accused of breaking the law.
Trump may have done some sleazy things. His tax files may not have been in perfect order. But I don't recall anyone accusing him of lying in court, revealing state secrets, or falsifying evidence. In hindsight it's amazing he didn't win by a larger margin.
Democrats need to stop putting criminals on the ballot. I'm not saying that Harris couldn't win in an election, it's quite possible she could given the narrow loss by Clinton. I'm saying that if Democrats want to be successful it would certainly help if they can find people to run that weren't accused of committing multiple felonies.
I had similar questions. It's pretty common knowledge that doorknobs will show samples of the diseases of all that used the door, and that money will show traces of drugs because drug control laws have worked so well or something.
The best explanation I have is someone wanted to know how unique the samples of chemicals on a highly personal item, like a phone, might be. Who would be interested in this enough to spend money on it? That could be a lot of people.
I do not believe the scenario you pose is plausible. The study showed that it is difficult to differentiate between people that live together. If someone was wise enough to wipe off a phone with solvents to rid it of fingerprints that would likely remove many of the unique chemical traces as well. Add in that the phone is likely to be dumped in a mud puddle, pile of garbage, or other such environment with it's own "chemistry" then I doubt it can be traced back to any one person with any certainty.
I think the investigative value would be much like how police now trace fingerprints, the stuff in tire tread or on the bottom of shoes, or what they can find on clothing.
What it also likely is that this is not a test of what they can find on the phones, but a test of the methods they use to collect the trace materials on the phones. Important details like this could have been lost in the editing process of creating a news article for a wide audience.
Barring that, maybe Apple should look at the design of their old PowerBook Duo. A thin laptop, but stick it in a docking station, and you gain a lot more ports.
If you want a dock with a "decent" GPU then there are a number of combinations of PCIe cages and GPUs to choose from. That's getting into an odd place though since few people would go through the expense of getting a laptop and a dock with GPU, gigabit Ethernet, and all the other stuff you listed and not simply buy a desktop computer to host all that hardware.
I have to wonder if you have your head stuck in the 1990s. People aren't limited to one computer by cost, space, or company policy like they used to. Your 1990s thinking shows especially with your demand for a removable battery. Just why would you want to remove the battery? I remember those battery chargers for laptops that could charge four batteries at a time, those haven't been a thing in a long time. People will now just buy an off the shelf universal battery that has a USB power output port.
I also believe that your definition of a "dock" is so narrow that you lost what a dock was supposed to do for you. My brother wanted a "dock" for his laptop so he could plug in dual displays, Ethernet, printer, keyboard, mouse, and speakers. There's all kinds of USB "docks" that will do that. It's not a box that one would slide their laptop into like a PowerBook Duo but it'd be a box with all the stuff you listed attached which can be connected to the laptop with a single cable. One would then also have to plug in the power cable too but, "OH NOES!! Not another cable!" is not how one should respond to that. You should respond with awe in the large number of choices in docks available, from so many different vendors, and at such low prices.
Harris has been a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career. While serving as District Attorney in Alameda County Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms.[76] Harris also supported San Franciscoâ(TM)s proposition H, which would have prohibited most firearms within city limits.[77]
Gun control is not popular, even among Democrats. Effectively calling the justices in SCOTUS idiots won't help in an election either.
In 2015, Harris defended convictions obtained by county prosecutors who had inserted a false confession into an interrogation transcript, committed perjury, and withheld evidence.[25] Federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski threw out the convictions, telling Harris's lawyers, "Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation."[25]
In March 2015 a California superior courts judge ordered Harris to take over a criminal case after Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was revealed to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence.[25] Harris refused, appealing the order and defending Ruckauckas.[25]
Harris appealed the dismissal of an indictment when it was discovered a Kern County, California prosecutor perjured in submitting a falsified confession as court evidence. Harris asserted that prosecutorial perjury was not sufficient to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. In the case,[119] Harris argued that only abject physical brutality would warrant a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the dismissal of an indictment, and that perjury was not sufficient.[120]
Dirty politicians are not popular either, even among Democrats. Especially those that potentially put innocent people in jail.
How about we find some honest person to run? Looking for a woman to run means ruling out half of the population and therefore hobbling the candidates before the campaigning even starts.
Wearable glasses? Great! I already have the Apple drinking glasses, I need the wearable glasses too. I already have the Apple Watch. And t-shirt. And the Apple ball cap. The iPad, iPod, iPhone. Then there's the socks, beach towel, pillow cases, and waffle iron.
Do you mean like how digital cameras make a "click" sound when an image is captured? There's a lot of things we do because that is how we are used to them. Have you ever thought of how e-mail programs use images like stamps, envelopes, pencils, paper, and so on? We use those images because we make a natural connection between sending a note electronically and sending a note by postal service.
If people are allowed to choose the sound their vehicles make when moving then I expect a lot of sounds that mimic how people traveled before. We'll have "old jalopy", "big block V-8", "baseball cards in spokes", "horse hooves on cobblestone", and the like. What I fear though is that someone will use a sound that will get kids run over, like "ice cream truck".
You say that as if it is a bad thing. If the "standard" greeting is a kick to the balls then please forgive me if I ask that I be greeted with a "nonstandard" handshake, tip of the hat, or nod of the head.
Even though Moore projected the rate of increased integrated circuit density he also projected it would have to end at some point. We've been seeing the rate of growth slow for some time so no one should be surprised if it ends now.
I will say that a laptop that can drive two 5K displays and it's internal HD display, without additional hardware, is impressive. But then maybe I'm easily impressed and/or I'm just ignorant of how laptops have improved lately.
I wish MS would just abandon the Mac, it would save everyone a lot of disappointment and aggravation.
You don't think that they tried? I remember some past attempts Microsoft had made in killing off their Mac products and it nearly ended them. One of the big selling points in many Microsoft products is that they work just as well (or rather just as poorly) on Windows and Mac. If they killed their Mac products do you believe all the Mac users would just switch to running Windows? This would be especially true now that most every Office file format has been reverse engineered well enough that people make competing products that can open and save those files with little issue. They might have to use an older file format but that has almost always been the case for people since not everyone upgrades their software at the same time, and old files need to be accessed in the future.
There was also that little matter of Microsoft being investigated for anti-competitive practices. Governments frown on such things. Also, governments are big customers to Microsoft. If they kill off their Mac products then that would bring government down on them for monopolistic practices again, cause governments to look at Mac compatible alternative, and quite likely both.
If we are going to make wishes then I have some of my own. I wish Microsoft would split into two. One company for the OS, and another for the software. This might stop the favoritism for Windows and force them to make office products and such that are equals for every OS. Another alternative wish is for Microsoft to merge with a few major hardware makers and sell their OS linked to the hardware like Apple does. As someone that has to support both Mac and Windows I will say that I see far more driver and hardware oddities on Windows than Mac and it gets annoying. There are a lot of reasons why none of this is likely.
While we are wishing then why not consider wishing for MS to abandon Windows? I mean that is probably just as likely as MS abandoning Mac. It would also give you what you want, a single operating system for you to deal with. Think about it, who does the kvetching more? Is it just one group or the other or do both complain about equally? I've worked in Mac heavy and Windows heavy environments before and the complaints generally came from those that had the room to complain. People figured out when the squeaky wheels got greased and when those wheels were more likely to get replaced.
I will say that I have no idea who you are, where you work, what kind of work you do, and so on. I just know what things were like for me and from the little you said I have my theories on what might be happening. I also know that there is more than one way to grant your wish, and you may want to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
When Apple switched from offering 2 CPUs to only 1 the number of cores available as BTO options did not change, that remained as up to 12 cores. What you are arguing over sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy.
If you are arguing that anything with less than 16 cores is a "toy" then that is a different argument. I fail to see the difference between having 2 CPUs with 6 cores each and having a single CPU with 12 cores. I'm sure that there are differences in many ways, just none that matter to most buyers.
A "gun type" weapon has the core in two halves. An "implosion type" weapon has the core as a single sub-critical piece. This was an implosion device, with a single piece core.
You ignored the part about nuclear power producing less CO2 for the same energy output compared to wind and solar. If you don't support nuclear power then you care more about people "believing" in AGW than the science. As a scientist you see that, no? Nuclear power is the best solution we have today for fighting AGW. Anything else is a lesser solution or some future wishful thinking nonexistent technology.
Again I ask, what is more important to you, that I believe as you do or act in accordance to your beliefs? I'm sure you'd prefer I do both but you can't always get both. Calling people ignorant isn't going to win people over, I suggest you use different tactics to make your point. I lead these horses to water but I can't make them drink. I tell you how to win me over and still you resort to name calling. You might call economics "not science" and perhaps so is psychology, but if you want to get ahead in this world you still need to understand these "not science" concepts.
Is this science to you? Windmills only produce power when the wind blows. Solar panels only produce power when the sun shines. Nuclear reactors will produce power in any weather. That's why the AGW "believers" should support nuclear power.
I have never heard of such a thing before. I have heard of CO poisoning from gas stoves, as in carbon MONOxide, not carbon DIoxide. I have to think that if you are producing that much CO2 from a gas stove then you aren't frying eggs or baking a turkey, you are blowing glass. I know people with gas stoves, I'll have to ask them about the CO2 levels they see.
If you're not a "believer" in AGW, then you probably aren't a "believer" in gravity or evolution...or even science.
Tell me something, is it more important to you that I "believe" in AGW as you do or more important that I reduce my CO2 output as you (presumably) do? Think real hard about that.
You tell me I have to do X because it will slow the rise of the oceans, and I'll tell you I don't care because I don't live near any coasts. You tell me to do X to save the polar bears, and I'll tell you I think they are vile creatures that eat cute little baby seals. You tell me to do X because it saves me money, now I'm listening and I don't give a fuck about any baby seals.
If you lobby the government for a new law to make Y required, then I will likely fight you on it if only because I don't like being told what to do. If you convince me that doing Y will make my life better, then not only will I do it I will also give you some of my money so that I can.
Like I said in my other post, I'll play along with your AGW "science", just don't push me too far. You want science? Here's some science. Wind and solar produce electricity at twice the cost of coal and nuclear. Nuclear power produces electricity with a smaller carbon footprint than wind or solar. I want cheap electricity and you want a small carbon footprint. If you cannot see that we both win with nuclear power then we have a problem. If we can agree on nuclear power then we don't have a problem.
Question: You know that not everyone believes as you do, right? Wrong answer: I'll make them believe. Right answer: My beliefs do not require them to.
When I normally use the "society is not government" argument it is usually in response to people that say "government should do something" when they really mean "society should do something". Should government pay to educate children? No, because that is not a power granted to the federal government or most state governments. But we still see public schools anyway, funny that people will vote themselves free stuff when they can. Should society pay to educate children? Of course. This can be done many ways. It can be done on a city or county level. It can be done through donation, not taxation, where people can (and do) voluntarily support schools they view as valuable to the community. It can also be done by parents taking care of their own and paying for school like they pay for their housing, food, and clothes.
Take that above argument on schools and shift it around to fit most anything that government pays for but does not show as a power granted to them.
This is different though. These are people that want to hold government responsible for what society has done. The government didn't cause AGW, society did. What they really want to do is take society to court but that is a class action suit that would fail on so many grounds. What do they expect government to do about AGW? Ban oil?
People will claim that America is "addicted to oil" which is wrong in so many ways but does kind of fit in a way. Think of an alcohol addicts, people that have been drinking alcohol for so long and in such quantities that if cut off the body cannot adjust and it will kill them. America has been burning oil for so long and in such quantities that cutting off the oil will kill America, as in the economy will collapse and real people will die.
If you take alcohol away from an addict then they will seek alternatives in any way they can from places that many would find disgusting and/or dangerous. They'll drink hair spray, hand sanitizer, rubbing alcohol, or whatever else they can grab, it might still kill them but they'll live longer this way than without. if the oil is cut off then we'll see people buying hydraulic fluid or "hydraulic fluid" (which is in quotes because it's just fuel oil relabeled) to fuel their cars, trucks, tractors, and generators. This might be the nastiest stuff to burn in their engines but people need to get work done and telling them they have to buy an electric powered replacement, which doesn't go as far, pull as much, or move as fast as what they have now, will not go over well.
I'm not a believer in AGW but I'll play along so long as people are practical about it. Electric cars suck big time, they cost too much, take to long to charge, and don't go very far. If people instead say we should use natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel fuel then I can go with that. Natural gas isn't great on range and refill times but that is because we are trying to fit natural gas tanks in vehicles built for liquid fuels and have to fill from natural gas lines made for residential systems. These are problems we can fix and we'll cut CO2 output in half for transportation. There's a bonus that natural gas is real cheap right now.
Those that say electricity must come from wind and solar only are asking too much. If we can agree to replace coal with natural gas and nuclear, with some wind and solar where it makes sense, then I can play along. Saying no to natural gas and nuclear is probably why Clinton lost the election. She could say no to coal, that cost her there in many places but that's manageable. Saying no to natural gas made her unpopular with even more people. Saying no to nuclear just put the final nail in that. Clinton lost in fucking Iowa and they live on windmills and ethanol. WTF? They voted her down like she pissed in their corn flakes, which probably isn't too far from the truth.
Oil fired ships and kerosene powered aircraft might just have to be left alone. There's some real and practical reasons we can't change that. If we can agree that
I agree. These problems are something my architect brother spoke about. His way to deal with it was to listen to what the customer asked for and then come back with three options for them.
The first is give them EXACTLY what they asked for. If they wanted a staircase to nowhere and a conversation pit in the garage then that's what they'd get. The second option is to offer them what he thinks they really wanted. Some people just don't know what they want but with experience my brother could get an idea of what people liked and needed. The third option is he'd give them what he wanted to make. He'd take their input but then come up with something he'd find interesting or would like to see experimented with. He said few people would take his first option.
I've also seen this in healthcare. People complain about how hospitals and their staff do things among other complaints on how they are treated. I can trace many of these complaints to a single cause, they are not the customer. The insurance company is paying the bills and so they are the real customer, and many of those in healthcare know this. This then creates a problem because the patients will not complain to the insurance company because they don't realize that their "customer" is not the hospital, but the insurance company. This is why I fear government healthcare, it adds another layer in this chain with one of them being the people that brought us the DMV and the poor customer experience we've all come to know from it.
That's not exactly where I intended to go with this but it is where I happened to end up. As a "customer" of government healthcare through the VA I can tell you that is not where you want to be. I will say that VA care has improved but it only took people dying of negligence and suicides for a enough US Senators to notice and care enough to act.
This was a B-36, those things would sometimes catch on fire because the radio operator farted. These aircraft were notorious for engine fires. A lot of this was because of it being a first of its kind, no one built an airframe that large before. It was put in service in spite of its problems because there were people that feared the Russians more than this aircraft.
In 1950 the B-36 was still new and not all of its problems were discovered yet. No doubt they learned a few things from this crash. This aircraft was designed to carry a much heavier load than this, but whether the design, or perhaps this specific airframe, met those design specs can certainly be disputed.
Slashdot Mirror
"In other words, hate speech is encoraged."
I think you mean that free speech is encouraged.
"Today, anyone who stands up for gay marriage is an asshole to many conservatives."
As they should. Government sanctioned marriage is a violation of the separation between church and state.
Just so no one is confused on where I stand, the government should not be licensing ANY marriage. Not hetero or homo marriage. Marriage should never be a civil act.
The problem with gay marriage is that the people that want this are forcing anyone authorized to perform the civil act of marriage (such as Christian pastors) to perform a gay marriage. Now you have a case of a government agent (the pastor) refusing to perform a civil act (the marriage) for people recognized by law as free to receive this service (the gay couple). If the gay community had kept their marriage as a purely civil act then there would not be a problem, since they are dragging Christians and Jews into this then people have a problem.
Oddly the gay community isn't dragging the Muslims into this. Maybe it's because the Muslims will hang gays from bridges and cranes.
"To the British, the American colonists who wanted indepedence were âoeassholesâ who didnâ(TM)t know their place under the monarchy, regardless of their lack of representation in the government."
Is that kind of like how conservatives are "assholes" for not knowing their place when it comes to gay marriage? Think about the analogy there, and how it worked out for the British. Generally people don't like being told their place.
"Can you explain why that standard should be applied only to Democrats?"
I didn't say it should. I said if Democrats want to win they shouldn't put felons on the ballot. The same applies to all other parties.
There is a wing on an Illinois state prison for all the governors doing time right now, all Democrats. Perhaps Democrats in Illinois can get away with felonious candidates and still win elections but that is not likely to translate to every other state and, as shown by those Democrats in jail, they can't always stay in office.
In other words Apple created a computer that could be called balanced, optimal, or efficient. The Mac Pro does not have TB3, 2 storage cards, and so on. If they add such things in a future design, and fail to also add a 2nd CPU then you may have a point.
My solution was to get prescription sunglasses. However the sunglasses are polarized so I have to hold my electronics just so or the screen goes dark from the cross polarization.
Trump has changed the game. If he can win, so can Harris.
Trump didn't file an amicus brief stating that people don't have the right of self defense. Trump didn't knowingly cover up perjury. If Democrats want to win elections then they need to go find people that haven't been accused of breaking the law.
Trump may have done some sleazy things. His tax files may not have been in perfect order. But I don't recall anyone accusing him of lying in court, revealing state secrets, or falsifying evidence. In hindsight it's amazing he didn't win by a larger margin.
Democrats need to stop putting criminals on the ballot. I'm not saying that Harris couldn't win in an election, it's quite possible she could given the narrow loss by Clinton. I'm saying that if Democrats want to be successful it would certainly help if they can find people to run that weren't accused of committing multiple felonies.
I had similar questions. It's pretty common knowledge that doorknobs will show samples of the diseases of all that used the door, and that money will show traces of drugs because drug control laws have worked so well or something.
The best explanation I have is someone wanted to know how unique the samples of chemicals on a highly personal item, like a phone, might be. Who would be interested in this enough to spend money on it? That could be a lot of people.
I do not believe the scenario you pose is plausible. The study showed that it is difficult to differentiate between people that live together. If someone was wise enough to wipe off a phone with solvents to rid it of fingerprints that would likely remove many of the unique chemical traces as well. Add in that the phone is likely to be dumped in a mud puddle, pile of garbage, or other such environment with it's own "chemistry" then I doubt it can be traced back to any one person with any certainty.
I think the investigative value would be much like how police now trace fingerprints, the stuff in tire tread or on the bottom of shoes, or what they can find on clothing.
What it also likely is that this is not a test of what they can find on the phones, but a test of the methods they use to collect the trace materials on the phones. Important details like this could have been lost in the editing process of creating a news article for a wide audience.
Wouldn't that just give them more material to sample for their search?
Barring that, maybe Apple should look at the design of their old PowerBook Duo. A thin laptop, but stick it in a docking station, and you gain a lot more ports.
There are docks for the new MacBooks, just not made by Apple. A quick Google search found me several different companies that make them, a few examples:
https://hengedocks.com/
https://www.landingzone.net/
https://www.elgato.com/en/thun...
http://zenboxx.com/
http://www.belkin.com/us/F4U08...
If you want a dock with a "decent" GPU then there are a number of combinations of PCIe cages and GPUs to choose from. That's getting into an odd place though since few people would go through the expense of getting a laptop and a dock with GPU, gigabit Ethernet, and all the other stuff you listed and not simply buy a desktop computer to host all that hardware.
I have to wonder if you have your head stuck in the 1990s. People aren't limited to one computer by cost, space, or company policy like they used to. Your 1990s thinking shows especially with your demand for a removable battery. Just why would you want to remove the battery? I remember those battery chargers for laptops that could charge four batteries at a time, those haven't been a thing in a long time. People will now just buy an off the shelf universal battery that has a USB power output port.
I also believe that your definition of a "dock" is so narrow that you lost what a dock was supposed to do for you. My brother wanted a "dock" for his laptop so he could plug in dual displays, Ethernet, printer, keyboard, mouse, and speakers. There's all kinds of USB "docks" that will do that. It's not a box that one would slide their laptop into like a PowerBook Duo but it'd be a box with all the stuff you listed attached which can be connected to the laptop with a single cable. One would then also have to plug in the power cable too but, "OH NOES!! Not another cable!" is not how one should respond to that. You should respond with awe in the large number of choices in docks available, from so many different vendors, and at such low prices.
Put Kamala Harris on the Dem ticket in 2020 and watch the orange blowhard get stomped by a Jamaican-South Indian woman
Who? I never heard of her.
I took a quick look at her Wikipedia page and I think I just found a good reason why she'd lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Harris has been a vocal proponent for gun control her entire career. While serving as District Attorney in Alameda County Harris recruited other District Attorneys and filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms.[76] Harris also supported San Franciscoâ(TM)s proposition H, which would have prohibited most firearms within city limits.[77]
Gun control is not popular, even among Democrats. Effectively calling the justices in SCOTUS idiots won't help in an election either.
Then there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2015, Harris defended convictions obtained by county prosecutors who had inserted a false confession into an interrogation transcript, committed perjury, and withheld evidence.[25] Federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski threw out the convictions, telling Harris's lawyers, "Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation."[25]
In March 2015 a California superior courts judge ordered Harris to take over a criminal case after Orange County, California District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was revealed to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence.[25] Harris refused, appealing the order and defending Ruckauckas.[25]
Harris appealed the dismissal of an indictment when it was discovered a Kern County, California prosecutor perjured in submitting a falsified confession as court evidence. Harris asserted that prosecutorial perjury was not sufficient to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. In the case,[119] Harris argued that only abject physical brutality would warrant a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the dismissal of an indictment, and that perjury was not sufficient.[120]
Dirty politicians are not popular either, even among Democrats. Especially those that potentially put innocent people in jail.
How about we find some honest person to run? Looking for a woman to run means ruling out half of the population and therefore hobbling the candidates before the campaigning even starts.
Wearable glasses? Great! I already have the Apple drinking glasses, I need the wearable glasses too. I already have the Apple Watch. And t-shirt. And the Apple ball cap. The iPad, iPod, iPhone. Then there's the socks, beach towel, pillow cases, and waffle iron.
Do you mean like how digital cameras make a "click" sound when an image is captured? There's a lot of things we do because that is how we are used to them. Have you ever thought of how e-mail programs use images like stamps, envelopes, pencils, paper, and so on? We use those images because we make a natural connection between sending a note electronically and sending a note by postal service.
If people are allowed to choose the sound their vehicles make when moving then I expect a lot of sounds that mimic how people traveled before. We'll have "old jalopy", "big block V-8", "baseball cards in spokes", "horse hooves on cobblestone", and the like. What I fear though is that someone will use a sound that will get kids run over, like "ice cream truck".
You say that as if it is a bad thing. If the "standard" greeting is a kick to the balls then please forgive me if I ask that I be greeted with a "nonstandard" handshake, tip of the hat, or nod of the head.
Even though Moore projected the rate of increased integrated circuit density he also projected it would have to end at some point. We've been seeing the rate of growth slow for some time so no one should be surprised if it ends now.
Not just faster but "significantly" faster.
Still not impressed? Me neither.
I will say that a laptop that can drive two 5K displays and it's internal HD display, without additional hardware, is impressive. But then maybe I'm easily impressed and/or I'm just ignorant of how laptops have improved lately.
I thought computer gaming was a professional sport now.
I wish MS would just abandon the Mac, it would save everyone a lot of disappointment and aggravation.
You don't think that they tried? I remember some past attempts Microsoft had made in killing off their Mac products and it nearly ended them. One of the big selling points in many Microsoft products is that they work just as well (or rather just as poorly) on Windows and Mac. If they killed their Mac products do you believe all the Mac users would just switch to running Windows? This would be especially true now that most every Office file format has been reverse engineered well enough that people make competing products that can open and save those files with little issue. They might have to use an older file format but that has almost always been the case for people since not everyone upgrades their software at the same time, and old files need to be accessed in the future.
There was also that little matter of Microsoft being investigated for anti-competitive practices. Governments frown on such things. Also, governments are big customers to Microsoft. If they kill off their Mac products then that would bring government down on them for monopolistic practices again, cause governments to look at Mac compatible alternative, and quite likely both.
If we are going to make wishes then I have some of my own. I wish Microsoft would split into two. One company for the OS, and another for the software. This might stop the favoritism for Windows and force them to make office products and such that are equals for every OS. Another alternative wish is for Microsoft to merge with a few major hardware makers and sell their OS linked to the hardware like Apple does. As someone that has to support both Mac and Windows I will say that I see far more driver and hardware oddities on Windows than Mac and it gets annoying. There are a lot of reasons why none of this is likely.
While we are wishing then why not consider wishing for MS to abandon Windows? I mean that is probably just as likely as MS abandoning Mac. It would also give you what you want, a single operating system for you to deal with. Think about it, who does the kvetching more? Is it just one group or the other or do both complain about equally? I've worked in Mac heavy and Windows heavy environments before and the complaints generally came from those that had the room to complain. People figured out when the squeaky wheels got greased and when those wheels were more likely to get replaced.
I will say that I have no idea who you are, where you work, what kind of work you do, and so on. I just know what things were like for me and from the little you said I have my theories on what might be happening. I also know that there is more than one way to grant your wish, and you may want to be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
When Apple switched from offering 2 CPUs to only 1 the number of cores available as BTO options did not change, that remained as up to 12 cores. What you are arguing over sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy.
If you are arguing that anything with less than 16 cores is a "toy" then that is a different argument. I fail to see the difference between having 2 CPUs with 6 cores each and having a single CPU with 12 cores. I'm sure that there are differences in many ways, just none that matter to most buyers.
A "gun type" weapon has the core in two halves. An "implosion type" weapon has the core as a single sub-critical piece. This was an implosion device, with a single piece core.
You ignored the part about nuclear power producing less CO2 for the same energy output compared to wind and solar. If you don't support nuclear power then you care more about people "believing" in AGW than the science. As a scientist you see that, no? Nuclear power is the best solution we have today for fighting AGW. Anything else is a lesser solution or some future wishful thinking nonexistent technology.
Again I ask, what is more important to you, that I believe as you do or act in accordance to your beliefs? I'm sure you'd prefer I do both but you can't always get both. Calling people ignorant isn't going to win people over, I suggest you use different tactics to make your point. I lead these horses to water but I can't make them drink. I tell you how to win me over and still you resort to name calling. You might call economics "not science" and perhaps so is psychology, but if you want to get ahead in this world you still need to understand these "not science" concepts.
Is this science to you? Windmills only produce power when the wind blows. Solar panels only produce power when the sun shines. Nuclear reactors will produce power in any weather. That's why the AGW "believers" should support nuclear power.
I have never heard of such a thing before. I have heard of CO poisoning from gas stoves, as in carbon MONOxide, not carbon DIoxide. I have to think that if you are producing that much CO2 from a gas stove then you aren't frying eggs or baking a turkey, you are blowing glass. I know people with gas stoves, I'll have to ask them about the CO2 levels they see.
If you're not a "believer" in AGW, then you probably aren't a "believer" in gravity or evolution...or even science.
Tell me something, is it more important to you that I "believe" in AGW as you do or more important that I reduce my CO2 output as you (presumably) do? Think real hard about that.
You tell me I have to do X because it will slow the rise of the oceans, and I'll tell you I don't care because I don't live near any coasts. You tell me to do X to save the polar bears, and I'll tell you I think they are vile creatures that eat cute little baby seals. You tell me to do X because it saves me money, now I'm listening and I don't give a fuck about any baby seals.
If you lobby the government for a new law to make Y required, then I will likely fight you on it if only because I don't like being told what to do. If you convince me that doing Y will make my life better, then not only will I do it I will also give you some of my money so that I can.
Like I said in my other post, I'll play along with your AGW "science", just don't push me too far. You want science? Here's some science. Wind and solar produce electricity at twice the cost of coal and nuclear. Nuclear power produces electricity with a smaller carbon footprint than wind or solar. I want cheap electricity and you want a small carbon footprint. If you cannot see that we both win with nuclear power then we have a problem. If we can agree on nuclear power then we don't have a problem.
Question: You know that not everyone believes as you do, right?
Wrong answer: I'll make them believe.
Right answer: My beliefs do not require them to.
What is going on in your room that you need to monitor CO2 levels? Are you doing a lot of "heavy breathing" or something?
When I normally use the "society is not government" argument it is usually in response to people that say "government should do something" when they really mean "society should do something". Should government pay to educate children? No, because that is not a power granted to the federal government or most state governments. But we still see public schools anyway, funny that people will vote themselves free stuff when they can. Should society pay to educate children? Of course. This can be done many ways. It can be done on a city or county level. It can be done through donation, not taxation, where people can (and do) voluntarily support schools they view as valuable to the community. It can also be done by parents taking care of their own and paying for school like they pay for their housing, food, and clothes.
Take that above argument on schools and shift it around to fit most anything that government pays for but does not show as a power granted to them.
This is different though. These are people that want to hold government responsible for what society has done. The government didn't cause AGW, society did. What they really want to do is take society to court but that is a class action suit that would fail on so many grounds. What do they expect government to do about AGW? Ban oil?
People will claim that America is "addicted to oil" which is wrong in so many ways but does kind of fit in a way. Think of an alcohol addicts, people that have been drinking alcohol for so long and in such quantities that if cut off the body cannot adjust and it will kill them. America has been burning oil for so long and in such quantities that cutting off the oil will kill America, as in the economy will collapse and real people will die.
If you take alcohol away from an addict then they will seek alternatives in any way they can from places that many would find disgusting and/or dangerous. They'll drink hair spray, hand sanitizer, rubbing alcohol, or whatever else they can grab, it might still kill them but they'll live longer this way than without. if the oil is cut off then we'll see people buying hydraulic fluid or "hydraulic fluid" (which is in quotes because it's just fuel oil relabeled) to fuel their cars, trucks, tractors, and generators. This might be the nastiest stuff to burn in their engines but people need to get work done and telling them they have to buy an electric powered replacement, which doesn't go as far, pull as much, or move as fast as what they have now, will not go over well.
I'm not a believer in AGW but I'll play along so long as people are practical about it. Electric cars suck big time, they cost too much, take to long to charge, and don't go very far. If people instead say we should use natural gas instead of gasoline and diesel fuel then I can go with that. Natural gas isn't great on range and refill times but that is because we are trying to fit natural gas tanks in vehicles built for liquid fuels and have to fill from natural gas lines made for residential systems. These are problems we can fix and we'll cut CO2 output in half for transportation. There's a bonus that natural gas is real cheap right now.
Those that say electricity must come from wind and solar only are asking too much. If we can agree to replace coal with natural gas and nuclear, with some wind and solar where it makes sense, then I can play along. Saying no to natural gas and nuclear is probably why Clinton lost the election. She could say no to coal, that cost her there in many places but that's manageable. Saying no to natural gas made her unpopular with even more people. Saying no to nuclear just put the final nail in that. Clinton lost in fucking Iowa and they live on windmills and ethanol. WTF? They voted her down like she pissed in their corn flakes, which probably isn't too far from the truth.
Oil fired ships and kerosene powered aircraft might just have to be left alone. There's some real and practical reasons we can't change that. If we can agree that
I agree. These problems are something my architect brother spoke about. His way to deal with it was to listen to what the customer asked for and then come back with three options for them.
The first is give them EXACTLY what they asked for. If they wanted a staircase to nowhere and a conversation pit in the garage then that's what they'd get. The second option is to offer them what he thinks they really wanted. Some people just don't know what they want but with experience my brother could get an idea of what people liked and needed. The third option is he'd give them what he wanted to make. He'd take their input but then come up with something he'd find interesting or would like to see experimented with. He said few people would take his first option.
I've also seen this in healthcare. People complain about how hospitals and their staff do things among other complaints on how they are treated. I can trace many of these complaints to a single cause, they are not the customer. The insurance company is paying the bills and so they are the real customer, and many of those in healthcare know this. This then creates a problem because the patients will not complain to the insurance company because they don't realize that their "customer" is not the hospital, but the insurance company. This is why I fear government healthcare, it adds another layer in this chain with one of them being the people that brought us the DMV and the poor customer experience we've all come to know from it.
That's not exactly where I intended to go with this but it is where I happened to end up. As a "customer" of government healthcare through the VA I can tell you that is not where you want to be. I will say that VA care has improved but it only took people dying of negligence and suicides for a enough US Senators to notice and care enough to act.
Ever think WHY the engines caught fire?
This was a B-36, those things would sometimes catch on fire because the radio operator farted. These aircraft were notorious for engine fires. A lot of this was because of it being a first of its kind, no one built an airframe that large before. It was put in service in spite of its problems because there were people that feared the Russians more than this aircraft.
In 1950 the B-36 was still new and not all of its problems were discovered yet. No doubt they learned a few things from this crash. This aircraft was designed to carry a much heavier load than this, but whether the design, or perhaps this specific airframe, met those design specs can certainly be disputed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...