The only point I was making was that claiming "86% of Firefox users are unhappy" solely based on that feedback page is likely a mistake because of selection bias. Nothing more, nothing less.
Honestly, I do sympathize, because I felt exactly the same way about Windows 8. Your situation is worse, because you can't just safely sit back on older versions of the software due to security concerns - at least Windows 7 is kept up to date via patches for a while still. Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 also tossed a visual design that I loved from the previous version and uglified everything to an incredible degree. I elected to use it anyway because of the increased C++ functionality I wanted. Fortunately, MS has listened to the overwhelming negative feedback and has made significant improvements both in Windows and Visual Studio.
I don't really care all that much, but since you feel so passionately about the matter, I do hope Mozilla listens to yours and others opinions on the matter.
Keep in mind that happy users are silent users. I use Firefox, and enjoy it. It runs fast, supports the plugins I want, and seems to be quite stable. More than that, it largely keeps out of my way, so honestly, I don't think about the browser all that much. I've never thought of submitting feedback on that site, because I have no real feedback to offer. That is, I have no real problems, and can't think offhand of anything the program is really lacking.
The only way you can get a true picture is if you get a random sampling among regular Firefox users. Any action initiated by the user to send feedback automatically will skew the result.
If 86% of users didn't like Firefox, I don't think they'd have the market share they do now. BTW, let's take a look at one of the sad faces I picked from the top of that list:
Stop that annoying paranoid shit about "update you flash or it will burn all your family to ashes and eat your left eye while pooping in your mouth". It's not THAT dangerous, user should have a possibility to shut it OFF. And not by clicking on every damned page to allow older plugin work, but by just choosing that option in the settings. I thrusted(sic) you, you were the last normal browser in a pile of shiny useless shit that thinks that user is an idiot. Now you doing this. Damn.
This user apparently wants an option to stay silent about older versions of Flash, which undoubtedly have security issues that need fixing. Should Mozilla "fix" this problem to the user's satisfaction? It's ironic that the user complains the browser "that thinks that user is an idiot" when he's advocating doing something incredibly stupid - not keeping all his plugins current.
Here's another frowny faced gem:
Please fix Norton toolbar 2014.7.8.23 been to long now makes me not want to use Firefox.....
Mozilla apparently needs to fix the Norton toolbar, or this user won't be happy. Good luck with that Mozilla!
I'm not saying that Firefox doesn't have legitimate issues, but my point is that looking at a feedback site such as that one is going to give you very, very skewed results. I've just pointed out two examples on the front page.
It depends on how good the a la carte offerings are, I suppose, and what it costs. For me, at less than $10 a month per subscription service, I can get far more relevant content than with cable by subscribing to several services, and it's ALL on demand. Even better, I still pay a fraction of what cable costs.
Many people hate cable because they bundle hundreds of channels you DON'T want in order to get the two or three channels you really do want. That business model isn't going to last long in the face of some real competition, assuming they don't figure out a way to quash it (like they were desperately trying to do with Netflix).
Why doesn't Twitter let users collectively rate other users either positively or negatively depending on their own words? Each twitter user gets a fixed number of mod points over time, increasing both with longevity and positive moderation of their own account. Twitter users can then set the level that they wish to see (default to a neutral moderation).
Most people know a troll when they see it. Most people are fundamentally decent. Harness this property to properly mark the trolls on Twitter. Everyone knows that it's very likely a small minority that poisons the well for everyone else.
I know that the devil is in the details, but despite some outliers, slashdot type moderation actually works pretty well. Every time I see an obvious troll or a really disgusting comment, it gets modded down to oblivion pretty quickly.
More critically, the question I always ask about this is: "Used for what?"
Without that context, why does popularity even matter? For example, I'm a game developer, so my programming life revolves around C++, at least for game-side or engine-level code - period. Nothing else is even on the radar when you're talking about highly-optimized, AAA games. For scripting, Lua is a popular contender. For internal tools, C# seems to be quite popular. I've also seen Python used for tool extensions, or for smaller tools in their own right. Javascript is generally only used for web-based games, or by the web development teams for peripheral stuff.
I'll bet everyone in their own particular industry has their own languages which are dominant. For instance, if you're working on the Linux kernel, you're obviously working in C. It doesn't matter what the hell everyone else does. If you're working in scientific computing, are you really looking seriously at Swift? Of course not. Fortran, F#, or C++ are probably more appropriate, or perhaps others I'm not aware of. A new lightweight iOS app? Swift it is!
Languages are not all equal. The popularity of Javascript is not the measure of merit of that particular language. It's a measure of how popular web-based development is (mostly). C/C++ is largely a measure of how many native, high-performance-required applications there are (games, OS development, large native applications). Etc, etc.
Raw popularity numbers probably only have one practical use, and that's finding a programming job without concern for the particular industry. Or I suppose if you're so emotionally invested in a particular language, it's nice to know where it stands among them all.
The few dollars they charge for text messages in addition to my normal $60 bill is not the difference between profitability and non-profitability for Verizon. I'm not arguing that we should be charged only by bandwidth, but that SMS messages should not be treated separately than other data when being charged by the GB.
It's an unbelievable scam, and I'm not sure why we let them get away with it, to be honest. There's no justification for it other than "we can bilk people out of a significant amount of money by doing this", and the fact that every carrier does the same thing (really?). SMS puts so little pressure on the network, you can pretty much round it down to zero.
Someday, when we have so much bandwidth that they can't possibly justify these pricing practices, we'll probably have some sort of Congressional hearings or federal investigation about collusion among these companies. I'll point back to this post and say "I told you so".:)
Question: Will Title II prevent mobile companies from charging different rates for different types of data? For instance, because I choose the lowest level, bare bones plan, Verizon currently charges me $0.20, or over $1300 per MB, which is pretty fucking ridiculous. No industry with any sort of legitimate competition would be able to charge people for that, when there's absolutely no justification for that sort of predatory pricing (other than to gouge their customers for lots of money).
Doesn't using a truck to deliver a one or two pound package seem like a bit of overkill to you? For lightweight package deliveries, a drone actually makes a lot more sense than a truck if you think about it, which is fuel-inefficient and contributes to ground-traffic issues. It's just that we're still not used to the technology. In another decade, there will probably be drones buzzing around in the air above us all the time, and we won't think twice about it, just like we don't gape in awe at airliners that are constantly flying overhead.
You call the worst the USA did was slavery? The crap we did to the american indians makes what hitler did look tame.
The USA didn't, as a matter of official policy, set out to systematically exterminate the entire race of American Indians. Bad enough what we did do, which was to essentially imprison and subjugate them under the weight of western civilization and technology, in addition to isolated acts of cruelty, slavery, and even mass murder. However, the comparison to Hitler means you either don't really know your history or are rather prone to hyperbole.
Keep in mind that, even with new APIs introduced, the old stacks still continue working just fine. WinForms or WPF apps will still run on Windows desktop machines decades from now, just like native Windows applications are still using Windows API calls written decades ago.
Also, despite rumors to the contrary, WPF is still being actively developed, although it's probably fair to say it's "peaked" as a technology, and is now transitioning into a maintenance mode. I'd have no qualms about creating a new WPF project tomorrow - so long as you know you're only targeting the Windows desktop. There are benefits to using a mature technology, and WPF is pretty mature at this point.
You really only need to use the new stack (WinRT) if you're planning to do cross-platform stuff across the entire Windows ecosystem (Metro/Surface/Mobile).
The.NET runtime and compilers are unique, though, so it makes much more sense to open those up.
Other platforms have fine C/C++ compilers. The MS compiler is not needed there. All you have to do is write ANSI C/C++ and - yay! - you're portable. In fact, note how Microsoft is actually working to improve other compilers' integration with Visual Studio, so they can more easily target Android and iOS, which is very cool.
The question of "why they exist" changes depending on perspective. From the perspective of a company or perhaps it's owner, their primary motivation is profit, and without this, they simply can't exist. People typically start businesses so they can earn a living, not to improve society, despite what their PR departments say.
From a societal or government's perspective, it's generally acknowledged that productive companies are also generally beneficial to society, as they produce goods, provide employment, and generate taxes. Thus, they are both protected and well-regulated by law.
From all perspectives, it's really only charities that exist exclusively for the benefit of society, and thus are given special advantages that normal companies do not have.
Yet he did more to save their asses than ALL of the RAF.
I hope all you brits are still ashamed of yourselves.
As opposed to forcibly enslaving millions of people around the world through several centuries of colonial rule? If you're going to lay a guilt trip on Britain, what about the US with it's legacy of slavery? And good heavens, look at the evils perpetrated in communist Russia, or Germany and Japan during the war years. Look, every country has their black marks, and some are pretty damn black indeed. If you're going to collectively assign guilt to future generations, it will never end. Ever. Future generations will also look at us and sadly shake their heads, I'm sure. We learn from the past, we forgive, we try to make things right as best we can, and we move on.
The British government has offered an official apology for their treatment of him and pardoned him, and I'm not sure how much more he can be honored and appreciated he can be at this point, not just by the Brits, but by everyone who knows how much he accomplished. See my sig.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying we should collectively be remotely worried about random IEDs, or even about terrorism in general, since it's so incredibly rare. Our airport security theater is especially lame. I'm just saying that I think the police were justified in treating this device with suspicion, especially with the way it looked. Take a look at that link and tell me that doesn't look suspicious to you. Honestly, I would never have guessed it was a camera.
Detonating a suspicious device in-place is how any potential explosive threat is done in almost all cases. It's not like the movies where specialists are choosing red or blue wires to snip, with an LED visibly showing a countdown timer. It's easy to mock the police for overreaction in hindsight now that we know there was no threat, but I just think that's a bit disingenuous.
BTW, here's where I'd disagree with the police:
At a news conference Tuesday afternoon, Atlanta police said the student responsible for taping the project to the bridge could be charged with reckless conduct once the investigation is complete.
I'm hoping the student gets off with a stern warning, because it seems pretty likely there was no ill intent here, just some questionable judgment about placing something like that on a freeway overpass.
Also, I'm glad to hear you're volunteering to go up to suspected bombs, peel them open, and rattle them around a bit to see if they're dangerous or not. No? It's pretty easy to say that you're 100% sure it's not a bomb when it's not your life on the line.
IED ATTACKS IN THE U.S. OCT 2012 – 38. NOV 2012 – 21. DEC 2012 – 28. JAN 2013 – 31. FEB 2013 – 23. MAR 2013 – 31.
Sometimes they do actually explode - seems about one a day, in fact. Why risk a life when it's simpler just to detonate something that looks so suspicious? Get off your fucking high horse.
What were the dosages you took? Note that taking 15ml of elderberry extract is NOT the same thing as a "homeopathic remedy". It's more accurately characterized as an "herbal remedy", something very different from homeopathy. I couldn't tell what the dosages were in the second study you linked to.
I've got no problem with herbal or natural medications - in fact, I think those should be the first thing tried, at least for non-life-threatening issues. When I'm sick with a cold, I'll take vitamin supplements, especially vitamin C - or sometimes just to help boost my immune system when others have colds around me. When I'm having trouble sleeping, I'll first turn to natural solutions like melatonin and other supplements that naturally induce sleep and relaxation before resorting to stronger, chemical-based solutions. Why not use natural ingredients if they're useful? Besides, modern medicine literally still has no way to fight virus-based illnesses. The only thing we can do is to protect our body while it fights off the illness by itself. If I ever come down with the flu, I might be inclined to try out some elderberry extract myself.
My big problem with homeopathy is the pseudo-science of massive dilution of active ingredients in an inert liquid. Either an herb or chemical is effective in treating a particular malady or it is not, but I think it's reasonable to be skeptical that something diluted down to a few molecules per dose will have any sort of real effect, when a large number of studies have shown many of those to be no more effective than a placebo dosage.
Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health
You mention saturated fats as having "proven negative effect", when more recent studies show it unfairly demonized as a bane to health. Sugars and starchy foods (like all those grains at the top of the food pyramid) are now looking to be just as much of a culprit as saturated fats.
While it's true that milk is not necessarily required for good health, it's a hell of a lot better for you than ingesting horrible concoctions of sugary sodas or other artificial drinks, and like you said, does contain calcium and is typically fortified with vitamin D. My take on it is that even if it's not "necessary" for good health (after all, it's designed for baby cows, not human adults), it's probably not doing you any harm, and it's better than many alternatives.
Not sure if that was a joke or if you have been drinking too much apple koolaide. I don't think apple loves you as much as you think it does. I don't think apple execs care about you as much as you think they do.
It's not that Apple loves you more than any other mega-corporation. Few people, I would imagine, actually have delusions about that. But Apple's primary business is selling hardware to you. It's partly why their hardware generally commands a premium price - it's sale subsidizes a lot of their software development.
Contrary to that, Google's primary business is selling information about you. This is used to subsidize many excellent and completely free software services, such as search, e-mail, and the Android platform.
I happily use gmail and have an Android phone. You just have to know the tradeoffs you're making. If you feel creepy about having an algorithm scan your e-mail to automatically present some targeted ads to you in exchange for a free e-mail service, then perhaps Apple is a better choice. If you're uncomfortable with Apple's complete control over it's walled garden world, then maybe Google / Android is a better choice for you. And if you're bound and determined to punish yourself, you can always buy a Windows phone.
I think a 2006 blog post by Larry Osterman of Microsoft actually explains it better than I could. He talks about the OOTB, or "Out Of The Box" experience by the customer, and how Apple managed to do so much better than nearly any other company at the time.
When people look at hardware specs and raw capabilities, they're completely missing the point of the Apple products. I think if I could sum up the difference in one word, that would be "polish".
Spider silk is amazing stuff. Stronger than steel, tougher than kevlar, highly elastic, strong or light, sticky or dry as the need arises, instantly manufactured on demand, and even recyclable (some spiders eat their own webs to recycle the valuable proteins). An orb weaver typically has enough raw material in it's body to create three complete webs.
I recently saw a researcher demonstrating the property of a spitting spider's webs. The spitting spider, as it's name implies, actually spits a spray of sticky web at it's victim with silk-jets that vibrate back and forth at an astounding speed to create a wide spray pattern. As the web silk dries, it contracts as well, helping to bind the victim in a silk spray straightjacket.
I agree to some extent. The cellphone is the critical part, but the rest of it is definitely a nice bonus. I bought my first smartphone also rather late in the game, a little over two years ago, because my $20 flip phone finally died.
Look at the benefits a powerful mobile computer gives you. It's a built-in navigation computer. You can actually research and look up who you want to call, say, if your car breaks down (better than simply dialing information). If your internet at home goes down, you can navigate to your ISP's website and get tech help numbers (this happened to me). And of course, it's a great entertainment platform - I can watch videos, read a book, or play a game anytime I'm forced to wait around. For many people, their phone can probably now replace even their home PC.
Having a smartphone doesn't turn you into an asshole. There were plenty of those that existed long before those devices were invented. If they're not interested in engaging humanity around them, I probably didn't want to talk with them in the first place. I actually don't use my phone a whole lot, but I love the additional security and functionality it gives me when I can make use of it.
Yep, pretty crazy to refuse to leave home without a device that could quickly summon lifesaving personnel in case of an accident, right? Or a tow truck in case of a breakdown. Or a map to help you find your way. Or entertainment in case you're stuck waiting for a half hour before your appointment somewhere. Or a way for anyone to reach you at any time for anything.
Do you know when I finally broke down and bought my first cell phone? My dad and I were driving on a wintery day and saw an accident in front of us and immediately called 911 on his phone. Luckily, the kid was not injured, but I decided that I never wanted to be without the ability to make that call for someone if I had to. When we were growing up, my Mom would have absolutely loved for her kids to have the security of a mobile phone, and mentioned it on several occasions. She mentioned it would be wonderful to have those "Dick Tracey watches" we saw in comics / movies so she could call us at any time, no matter where we were.
The internet of things will have some killer niche applications, but it's not going to be the transformational experience for most people like cellphones/smartphones were. I'm just having a hard time seeing the same incredible utility that a smartphone offers for most people.
Not necessarily. The market rewards companies that demonstrate an ability to outproduce or out-innovate their competitors. I'm not arguing that's necessarily the case with Apple, but a company that reaps large profits doesn't necessarily indicate a broken system.
In my opinion, the best indication of a broken market is a company whose customers hate their guts yet still manage to reap huge profits. That's an indication that legitimate competitors are somehow being kept out of the market, either because of leverage/buyouts, artificial monopolies, cartels, or whatever. Capitalism is a pretty decent economic system compared to the alternatives, but anyone who thinks it's infallible isn't paying attention.
The people that buy Apple products tend to like them, enjoy using them, and regularly upgrade their products with new purchases. Whatever faults Apple has, it's hard to argue that their success is completely illegitimate.
I suppose that's legit, if they're purposely reproducing the limitations of that original program, in which case there's a baseline to measure against with similar rule sets. Do you happen to know if that's the case - that the chess rules actually match? I read the articles linked but didn't see that specifically mentioned.
I still have an issues with the claim of "world's smallest chess program on any platform", though, because it's not a complete chess program as nearly anyone would define it.
Slashdot Mirror
The only point I was making was that claiming "86% of Firefox users are unhappy" solely based on that feedback page is likely a mistake because of selection bias. Nothing more, nothing less.
Honestly, I do sympathize, because I felt exactly the same way about Windows 8. Your situation is worse, because you can't just safely sit back on older versions of the software due to security concerns - at least Windows 7 is kept up to date via patches for a while still. Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 also tossed a visual design that I loved from the previous version and uglified everything to an incredible degree. I elected to use it anyway because of the increased C++ functionality I wanted. Fortunately, MS has listened to the overwhelming negative feedback and has made significant improvements both in Windows and Visual Studio.
I don't really care all that much, but since you feel so passionately about the matter, I do hope Mozilla listens to yours and others opinions on the matter.
Keep in mind that happy users are silent users. I use Firefox, and enjoy it. It runs fast, supports the plugins I want, and seems to be quite stable. More than that, it largely keeps out of my way, so honestly, I don't think about the browser all that much. I've never thought of submitting feedback on that site, because I have no real feedback to offer. That is, I have no real problems, and can't think offhand of anything the program is really lacking.
The only way you can get a true picture is if you get a random sampling among regular Firefox users. Any action initiated by the user to send feedback automatically will skew the result.
If 86% of users didn't like Firefox, I don't think they'd have the market share they do now. BTW, let's take a look at one of the sad faces I picked from the top of that list:
Stop that annoying paranoid shit about "update you flash or it will burn all your family to ashes and eat your left eye while pooping in your mouth". It's not THAT dangerous, user should have a possibility to shut it OFF. And not by clicking on every damned page to allow older plugin work, but by just choosing that option in the settings. I thrusted(sic) you, you were the last normal browser in a pile of shiny useless shit that thinks that user is an idiot. Now you doing this. Damn.
This user apparently wants an option to stay silent about older versions of Flash, which undoubtedly have security issues that need fixing. Should Mozilla "fix" this problem to the user's satisfaction? It's ironic that the user complains the browser "that thinks that user is an idiot" when he's advocating doing something incredibly stupid - not keeping all his plugins current.
Here's another frowny faced gem:
Please fix Norton toolbar 2014.7.8.23 been to long now makes me not want to use Firefox .....
Mozilla apparently needs to fix the Norton toolbar, or this user won't be happy. Good luck with that Mozilla!
I'm not saying that Firefox doesn't have legitimate issues, but my point is that looking at a feedback site such as that one is going to give you very, very skewed results. I've just pointed out two examples on the front page.
It depends on how good the a la carte offerings are, I suppose, and what it costs. For me, at less than $10 a month per subscription service, I can get far more relevant content than with cable by subscribing to several services, and it's ALL on demand. Even better, I still pay a fraction of what cable costs.
Many people hate cable because they bundle hundreds of channels you DON'T want in order to get the two or three channels you really do want. That business model isn't going to last long in the face of some real competition, assuming they don't figure out a way to quash it (like they were desperately trying to do with Netflix).
Why doesn't Twitter let users collectively rate other users either positively or negatively depending on their own words? Each twitter user gets a fixed number of mod points over time, increasing both with longevity and positive moderation of their own account. Twitter users can then set the level that they wish to see (default to a neutral moderation).
Most people know a troll when they see it. Most people are fundamentally decent. Harness this property to properly mark the trolls on Twitter. Everyone knows that it's very likely a small minority that poisons the well for everyone else.
I know that the devil is in the details, but despite some outliers, slashdot type moderation actually works pretty well. Every time I see an obvious troll or a really disgusting comment, it gets modded down to oblivion pretty quickly.
More critically, the question I always ask about this is: "Used for what?"
Without that context, why does popularity even matter? For example, I'm a game developer, so my programming life revolves around C++, at least for game-side or engine-level code - period. Nothing else is even on the radar when you're talking about highly-optimized, AAA games. For scripting, Lua is a popular contender. For internal tools, C# seems to be quite popular. I've also seen Python used for tool extensions, or for smaller tools in their own right. Javascript is generally only used for web-based games, or by the web development teams for peripheral stuff.
I'll bet everyone in their own particular industry has their own languages which are dominant. For instance, if you're working on the Linux kernel, you're obviously working in C. It doesn't matter what the hell everyone else does. If you're working in scientific computing, are you really looking seriously at Swift? Of course not. Fortran, F#, or C++ are probably more appropriate, or perhaps others I'm not aware of. A new lightweight iOS app? Swift it is!
Languages are not all equal. The popularity of Javascript is not the measure of merit of that particular language. It's a measure of how popular web-based development is (mostly). C/C++ is largely a measure of how many native, high-performance-required applications there are (games, OS development, large native applications). Etc, etc.
Raw popularity numbers probably only have one practical use, and that's finding a programming job without concern for the particular industry. Or I suppose if you're so emotionally invested in a particular language, it's nice to know where it stands among them all.
John Hancock begs to differ.
The few dollars they charge for text messages in addition to my normal $60 bill is not the difference between profitability and non-profitability for Verizon. I'm not arguing that we should be charged only by bandwidth, but that SMS messages should not be treated separately than other data when being charged by the GB.
It's an unbelievable scam, and I'm not sure why we let them get away with it, to be honest. There's no justification for it other than "we can bilk people out of a significant amount of money by doing this", and the fact that every carrier does the same thing (really?). SMS puts so little pressure on the network, you can pretty much round it down to zero.
Someday, when we have so much bandwidth that they can't possibly justify these pricing practices, we'll probably have some sort of Congressional hearings or federal investigation about collusion among these companies. I'll point back to this post and say "I told you so". :)
Question: Will Title II prevent mobile companies from charging different rates for different types of data? For instance, because I choose the lowest level, bare bones plan, Verizon currently charges me $0.20, or over $1300 per MB, which is pretty fucking ridiculous. No industry with any sort of legitimate competition would be able to charge people for that, when there's absolutely no justification for that sort of predatory pricing (other than to gouge their customers for lots of money).
Doesn't using a truck to deliver a one or two pound package seem like a bit of overkill to you? For lightweight package deliveries, a drone actually makes a lot more sense than a truck if you think about it, which is fuel-inefficient and contributes to ground-traffic issues. It's just that we're still not used to the technology. In another decade, there will probably be drones buzzing around in the air above us all the time, and we won't think twice about it, just like we don't gape in awe at airliners that are constantly flying overhead.
You call the worst the USA did was slavery?
The crap we did to the american indians makes what hitler did look tame.
The USA didn't, as a matter of official policy, set out to systematically exterminate the entire race of American Indians. Bad enough what we did do, which was to essentially imprison and subjugate them under the weight of western civilization and technology, in addition to isolated acts of cruelty, slavery, and even mass murder. However, the comparison to Hitler means you either don't really know your history or are rather prone to hyperbole.
Keep in mind that, even with new APIs introduced, the old stacks still continue working just fine. WinForms or WPF apps will still run on Windows desktop machines decades from now, just like native Windows applications are still using Windows API calls written decades ago.
Also, despite rumors to the contrary, WPF is still being actively developed, although it's probably fair to say it's "peaked" as a technology, and is now transitioning into a maintenance mode. I'd have no qualms about creating a new WPF project tomorrow - so long as you know you're only targeting the Windows desktop. There are benefits to using a mature technology, and WPF is pretty mature at this point.
You really only need to use the new stack (WinRT) if you're planning to do cross-platform stuff across the entire Windows ecosystem (Metro/Surface/Mobile).
The .NET runtime and compilers are unique, though, so it makes much more sense to open those up.
Other platforms have fine C/C++ compilers. The MS compiler is not needed there. All you have to do is write ANSI C/C++ and - yay! - you're portable. In fact, note how Microsoft is actually working to improve other compilers' integration with Visual Studio, so they can more easily target Android and iOS, which is very cool.
The question of "why they exist" changes depending on perspective. From the perspective of a company or perhaps it's owner, their primary motivation is profit, and without this, they simply can't exist. People typically start businesses so they can earn a living, not to improve society, despite what their PR departments say.
From a societal or government's perspective, it's generally acknowledged that productive companies are also generally beneficial to society, as they produce goods, provide employment, and generate taxes. Thus, they are both protected and well-regulated by law.
From all perspectives, it's really only charities that exist exclusively for the benefit of society, and thus are given special advantages that normal companies do not have.
Yet he did more to save their asses than ALL of the RAF.
I hope all you brits are still ashamed of yourselves.
As opposed to forcibly enslaving millions of people around the world through several centuries of colonial rule? If you're going to lay a guilt trip on Britain, what about the US with it's legacy of slavery? And good heavens, look at the evils perpetrated in communist Russia, or Germany and Japan during the war years. Look, every country has their black marks, and some are pretty damn black indeed. If you're going to collectively assign guilt to future generations, it will never end. Ever. Future generations will also look at us and sadly shake their heads, I'm sure. We learn from the past, we forgive, we try to make things right as best we can, and we move on.
The British government has offered an official apology for their treatment of him and pardoned him, and I'm not sure how much more he can be honored and appreciated he can be at this point, not just by the Brits, but by everyone who knows how much he accomplished. See my sig.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying we should collectively be remotely worried about random IEDs, or even about terrorism in general, since it's so incredibly rare. Our airport security theater is especially lame. I'm just saying that I think the police were justified in treating this device with suspicion, especially with the way it looked. Take a look at that link and tell me that doesn't look suspicious to you. Honestly, I would never have guessed it was a camera.
Detonating a suspicious device in-place is how any potential explosive threat is done in almost all cases. It's not like the movies where specialists are choosing red or blue wires to snip, with an LED visibly showing a countdown timer. It's easy to mock the police for overreaction in hindsight now that we know there was no threat, but I just think that's a bit disingenuous.
BTW, here's where I'd disagree with the police:
At a news conference Tuesday afternoon, Atlanta police said the student responsible for taping the project to the bridge could be charged with reckless conduct once the investigation is complete.
I'm hoping the student gets off with a stern warning, because it seems pretty likely there was no ill intent here, just some questionable judgment about placing something like that on a freeway overpass.
Tell me if you can determine for sure that this isn't a bomb. Because that sure doesn't look like a camera to me. That looks more like an IED than a camera.
Also, I'm glad to hear you're volunteering to go up to suspected bombs, peel them open, and rattle them around a bit to see if they're dangerous or not. No? It's pretty easy to say that you're 100% sure it's not a bomb when it's not your life on the line.
IED ATTACKS IN THE U.S.
OCT 2012 – 38.
NOV 2012 – 21.
DEC 2012 – 28.
JAN 2013 – 31.
FEB 2013 – 23.
MAR 2013 – 31.
Sometimes they do actually explode - seems about one a day, in fact. Why risk a life when it's simpler just to detonate something that looks so suspicious? Get off your fucking high horse.
What were the dosages you took? Note that taking 15ml of elderberry extract is NOT the same thing as a "homeopathic remedy". It's more accurately characterized as an "herbal remedy", something very different from homeopathy. I couldn't tell what the dosages were in the second study you linked to.
I've got no problem with herbal or natural medications - in fact, I think those should be the first thing tried, at least for non-life-threatening issues. When I'm sick with a cold, I'll take vitamin supplements, especially vitamin C - or sometimes just to help boost my immune system when others have colds around me. When I'm having trouble sleeping, I'll first turn to natural solutions like melatonin and other supplements that naturally induce sleep and relaxation before resorting to stronger, chemical-based solutions. Why not use natural ingredients if they're useful? Besides, modern medicine literally still has no way to fight virus-based illnesses. The only thing we can do is to protect our body while it fights off the illness by itself. If I ever come down with the flu, I might be inclined to try out some elderberry extract myself.
My big problem with homeopathy is the pseudo-science of massive dilution of active ingredients in an inert liquid. Either an herb or chemical is effective in treating a particular malady or it is not, but I think it's reasonable to be skeptical that something diluted down to a few molecules per dose will have any sort of real effect, when a large number of studies have shown many of those to be no more effective than a placebo dosage.
Milk contains saturated fat which has proven negative effects on health
You mention saturated fats as having "proven negative effect", when more recent studies show it unfairly demonized as a bane to health. Sugars and starchy foods (like all those grains at the top of the food pyramid) are now looking to be just as much of a culprit as saturated fats.
While it's true that milk is not necessarily required for good health, it's a hell of a lot better for you than ingesting horrible concoctions of sugary sodas or other artificial drinks, and like you said, does contain calcium and is typically fortified with vitamin D. My take on it is that even if it's not "necessary" for good health (after all, it's designed for baby cows, not human adults), it's probably not doing you any harm, and it's better than many alternatives.
Not sure if that was a joke or if you have been drinking too much apple koolaide. I don't think apple loves you as much as you think it does. I don't think apple execs care about you as much as you think they do.
It's not that Apple loves you more than any other mega-corporation. Few people, I would imagine, actually have delusions about that. But Apple's primary business is selling hardware to you. It's partly why their hardware generally commands a premium price - it's sale subsidizes a lot of their software development.
Contrary to that, Google's primary business is selling information about you. This is used to subsidize many excellent and completely free software services, such as search, e-mail, and the Android platform.
I happily use gmail and have an Android phone. You just have to know the tradeoffs you're making. If you feel creepy about having an algorithm scan your e-mail to automatically present some targeted ads to you in exchange for a free e-mail service, then perhaps Apple is a better choice. If you're uncomfortable with Apple's complete control over it's walled garden world, then maybe Google / Android is a better choice for you. And if you're bound and determined to punish yourself, you can always buy a Windows phone.
I think a 2006 blog post by Larry Osterman of Microsoft actually explains it better than I could. He talks about the OOTB, or "Out Of The Box" experience by the customer, and how Apple managed to do so much better than nearly any other company at the time.
When people look at hardware specs and raw capabilities, they're completely missing the point of the Apple products. I think if I could sum up the difference in one word, that would be "polish".
Spider silk is amazing stuff. Stronger than steel, tougher than kevlar, highly elastic, strong or light, sticky or dry as the need arises, instantly manufactured on demand, and even recyclable (some spiders eat their own webs to recycle the valuable proteins). An orb weaver typically has enough raw material in it's body to create three complete webs.
I recently saw a researcher demonstrating the property of a spitting spider's webs. The spitting spider, as it's name implies, actually spits a spray of sticky web at it's victim with silk-jets that vibrate back and forth at an astounding speed to create a wide spray pattern. As the web silk dries, it contracts as well, helping to bind the victim in a silk spray straightjacket.
I agree to some extent. The cellphone is the critical part, but the rest of it is definitely a nice bonus. I bought my first smartphone also rather late in the game, a little over two years ago, because my $20 flip phone finally died.
Look at the benefits a powerful mobile computer gives you. It's a built-in navigation computer. You can actually research and look up who you want to call, say, if your car breaks down (better than simply dialing information). If your internet at home goes down, you can navigate to your ISP's website and get tech help numbers (this happened to me). And of course, it's a great entertainment platform - I can watch videos, read a book, or play a game anytime I'm forced to wait around. For many people, their phone can probably now replace even their home PC.
Having a smartphone doesn't turn you into an asshole. There were plenty of those that existed long before those devices were invented. If they're not interested in engaging humanity around them, I probably didn't want to talk with them in the first place. I actually don't use my phone a whole lot, but I love the additional security and functionality it gives me when I can make use of it.
Yep, pretty crazy to refuse to leave home without a device that could quickly summon lifesaving personnel in case of an accident, right? Or a tow truck in case of a breakdown. Or a map to help you find your way. Or entertainment in case you're stuck waiting for a half hour before your appointment somewhere. Or a way for anyone to reach you at any time for anything.
Do you know when I finally broke down and bought my first cell phone? My dad and I were driving on a wintery day and saw an accident in front of us and immediately called 911 on his phone. Luckily, the kid was not injured, but I decided that I never wanted to be without the ability to make that call for someone if I had to. When we were growing up, my Mom would have absolutely loved for her kids to have the security of a mobile phone, and mentioned it on several occasions. She mentioned it would be wonderful to have those "Dick Tracey watches" we saw in comics / movies so she could call us at any time, no matter where we were.
The internet of things will have some killer niche applications, but it's not going to be the transformational experience for most people like cellphones/smartphones were. I'm just having a hard time seeing the same incredible utility that a smartphone offers for most people.
Not necessarily. The market rewards companies that demonstrate an ability to outproduce or out-innovate their competitors. I'm not arguing that's necessarily the case with Apple, but a company that reaps large profits doesn't necessarily indicate a broken system.
In my opinion, the best indication of a broken market is a company whose customers hate their guts yet still manage to reap huge profits. That's an indication that legitimate competitors are somehow being kept out of the market, either because of leverage/buyouts, artificial monopolies, cartels, or whatever. Capitalism is a pretty decent economic system compared to the alternatives, but anyone who thinks it's infallible isn't paying attention.
The people that buy Apple products tend to like them, enjoy using them, and regularly upgrade their products with new purchases. Whatever faults Apple has, it's hard to argue that their success is completely illegitimate.
I suppose that's legit, if they're purposely reproducing the limitations of that original program, in which case there's a baseline to measure against with similar rule sets. Do you happen to know if that's the case - that the chess rules actually match? I read the articles linked but didn't see that specifically mentioned.
I still have an issues with the claim of "world's smallest chess program on any platform", though, because it's not a complete chess program as nearly anyone would define it.