Maybe this is a good time to complain about my WiFi issues with the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. When it wakes up, I always have to disconnect and reconnect from the access point. When I go between home and work, I expect it to automatically connect to the appropriate access point, but I always have to do it manually
Apparently, these are known issues. I love my Surface Pro 3, but it would be great if this was addressed.
Wrong? I expressed my aversion to a particular spelling. I don't think that I am "wrong." It really does bother me. I even wrote "please" to indicate that I wasn't on some grammatical high horse.
First of all, I love Python. I get to program in Python all day.
However, I often wonder if Python's assignment methodology confuses students that move on to other languages.
In Python, an assignment is actually a naming operation, and not an assignment. On the surface, this seems to be the same thing, but it really is different. The other languages, with which I'm familar, do not operate like this.
Well, not exactly lip service. Compared to their counterparts, even though they still spend excessively, Republican congressmen apparently propose far less spending. I can't find the reference, but a few years back I remember a story that compared the average Republican congressman to the average Democrat. The average Democrat was attached to proposed legislation (as in sponsor) with costs something like four times that of the Republican (if passed).
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off". Yes, I said something like that (in 1986 or so). What people tend to miss, is that what I said there about C++ is to a varying extent true for all powerful languages. As you protect people from simple dangers, they get themselves into new and less obvious problems. Someone who avoids the simple problems may simply be heading for a not-so-simple one. One problem with very supporting and protective environments is that the hard problems may be discovered too late or be too hard to remedy once discovered. Also, a rare problem is harder to find than a frequent one because you don't suspect it.
Interesting that the battery spec isn't on par with the competitors listed on their website. Both the Nexus 9 and the iPad Mini have in excess of 50%-more capacity. I didn't see any numbers on expected battery life.
On the other hand, the price and multitasking-approach makes it a very attractive alternative, to me.
I felt the same way when reading the trilogy for the second time. The first time that read it, I was quite taken with the psychohistory concept. However, between readings I had learned about Chaos Theory and I felt that I couldn't enjoy the story properly.
Perhaps, particularly in this last election cycle, the money would be better spent in the primaries. Clearly, the American voters wanted the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and to retain control of the House. For a number of reasons, that was the overriding issue, across the board.
If Lessig's PAC had worked to get more favorable candidates into position in the primaries, they might have had a bigger return on their dollar.
Speaking of the election, http://townhall.com/ had this to say about the election results
Roughly two months ago, we explored the question of whether Republicans were headed for a "wave" election victory in 2014. The results are in, and the verdict is unequivocal: Yes. As of this writing -- in the wee hours of the morning -- Republicans appear poised to win their largest House majority in well over half a century. They have won the United States Senate by a decisive margin, netting eight seats outright, with a ninth almost certainly on the way. They will actually gain a number of governorships -- building on their already-remarkable 30-20 advantage. And they've expanded their dominance of state-level legislative chambers. A comprehensive blowout. There are many things for conservatives to celebrate. An incomplete list, in no particular order:
(1) Senators-elect Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and Thom Tillis are all winners of formerly-blue seats in states carried by Barack Obama at least once. Gardner tossed a perfect game in his race, beating Sen. Mark "Uterus" Udall soundly (by six points, with 89 percent of the vote counted). He neutralized the "war on women" nonsense and outperformed among Latinos. The national party should turn Gardner's win into a case study. Joni Ernst dominated Bruce Braley, winning by eight points. Adding insult to injury, Democrats also lost Braley's House seat. These 'precriminations' told the story. And Thom Tillis, who trailed in the polling average for the entire race, came from behind and ousted Kay Hagan.
(2) The last time Republicans defeated more than two incumbent Democratic Senators in one election cycle was 1980. In 2014, they've gotten four (Pryor, Udall, Hagan, Begich), with a fifth -- Mary Landrieu -- looking like a sitting duck. Landrieu garnered just 42 percent of the vote in Louisiana, compared to 55 percent for her two GOP rivals. She will need a miracle to win the December 6 runoff.
(3) The polls were, in fact, skewed. Toward Democrats. Significantly. Mitch McConnell won by 15 points in Kentucky. David Perdue beat Michelle Nunn by 13 points, easily avoiding a run-off. Tom Cotton absolutely destroyed Mark Pryor. Tillis wasn't supposed to win. The polls were way off in all of these races. And, I'm happy to add, the disgusting race-baiting failed.
(4) If the GOP takes Louisiana as expected, and if Maine independent Angus King decides to caucus with Republicans -- which he's reportedly open to doing -- the party will control 55 seats in January. Republicans were at a 60-40 disadvantage in the upper chamber as recently as early 2010. That's a breathtaking turnaround, mirroring Democrats' Senate gains from 2004 to 2008. Question: Might Sen. Joe Manchin be thinking about pulling a Jim Jeffords and switching parties, given what just happened in his state? That would be 56.
(5) Democrats insisted that Obamacare was not a big issue in this campaign. Republicans' campaigns blew that theory out of the waterand then there's this (a tally that doesn't include Begich or Landrieu):
almost half! MT @mkhammer: Damn. RT @philipaklein: w/ Hagan’s loss: 27 senators who voted for Obamacare won't be part of new Senate
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 5, 2014
(6) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has now beaten the Left three times in four years. And each win has built on the last. He beat Mary Burke by nearly seven points in a race that was supposedly "tied" two weeks ago. The Marquette poll nailed it again. Walker has been rewarded by voters for his courageous and successful governance in a state that hasn't been carried by a Republican presidential ticket in decades. And this perspective is just delicious:
So Charlie Crist lost as many races as Scott Walker won in the last four years.
— Daniel Ehlers (@DanielEhlers) November 5, 2014
Three Crist losses, with three different parties. Good riddance.
So, which Republicans voted for the ACA?...For that matter, what Republican support was needed to overcome a filibuster?
Apparently you don't know much about this history of what you are talking about. The answer to that question (which I think you suspected had no answer): the Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snow.
So, the Democrats created this whole crapload to satisfy one Republican Senator? Even though they didn't need her vote and she didn't wind up voting for it? And it's the Republicans' fault? Talk about delusional!
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does.
Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH.
Funny, I remember Republicans supporting Obama on:
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act
The Farm Bill
The Home Heating Emergency Assistance Through Transportation Act
The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act
Nearly every key aspect of it comes from the GOP plan that Heritage came up with around 1989.
Right. A 1989 plan from a conservative think tank that never had enough support to even be proposed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. That's a plan that "belongs" to the Republicans. That's the 11,000-page Affordable Care Act. Right.
I know Democrats are embarrassed by the plan, the plan's rollout, the plan's implementation, and the plan's deleterious effects on our country, but come on! Face the music!
So, which Republicans voted for the ACA? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to garner those votes? For that matter, what Republican support was needed to overcome a filibuster? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to get Republican support in order to overcome that filibuster? Geez, just own up to the responsibility for what your party has done.
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system?
Their memories are simply that short.
It has nothing to do with short memories. The overwhelming majority of Republicans never supported this plan. A single Republican governor of a liberal state supported a state-local version of this plan.
You know, until very recently, a Democrat President opposed gay marriage. So, does that mean that Democrats are so stupid that they can not see it's a Democrat ideal?
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system? Because as a Democrat I wanted a system closer to Canadian Healthcare as it works.
Because a single Republican governor implemented a similar system in a Democrat-controlled state, then automatically, this is a Republican plan that all (or even a majority of) Republicans across the nation supported? What a stupid statement! It completely flies in the face of actual facts.
Every single Republican in Congress opposed this plan. Republican voters overwhelmingly opposed (and still oppose) this plan.
The Democrats had complete control of Congress and the Executive Branch and they passed what they wanted to pass.
This clusterfuck is all on them. If it wasn't so terrible, it would be laughable that Democrats keep trying to pin the blame on the Republicans for this mess
Right after the Supreme Court's decision to lift limits on campaign contributions, Democrats and their left-wing supporters assaulted the decision as a boon to Republicans, "the party of the rich."
This of course is part of a far-wider narrative — slavishly repeated by largely unquestioning liberal media — that the GOP outspends Democrats on campaigns thanks to big-buck donors like the billionaire Koch brothers.
But, as it turns out, that's a lie — as big a lie, in fact, as "you can keep your insurance," "you can keep your doctor" and "ObamaCare will bend the cost curve down."
By almost every measure, in fact, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the party of the rich.
Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members. And most of them are Democrats.
And contrary to the hand-wringing on the left about the Supreme Court's 5-4 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling Wednesday, Democrats far outspend Republicans on elections. It isn't even close.
According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1.
But what about the villainous Koch brothers, those conservative plutocrats supposedly seeking to control American politics? They rank 59th on the list of big givers — behind 18 unions and No. 1 Act Blue, the massive left-wing fund raiser that gives only to Democrats.
Indeed, a recent book, "The New Leviathan," says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, superPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).
So Democrats don't really want to restrain money in politics. Just the money that goes to Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this is a good time to complain about my WiFi issues with the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. When it wakes up, I always have to disconnect and reconnect from the access point. When I go between home and work, I expect it to automatically connect to the appropriate access point, but I always have to do it manually
Apparently, these are known issues. I love my Surface Pro 3, but it would be great if this was addressed.
Wrong? I expressed my aversion to a particular spelling. I don't think that I am "wrong." It really does bother me. I even wrote "please" to indicate that I wasn't on some grammatical high horse.
on a lot of the mouses ...
"Mice", please! "Mouses" [shudder] is just painful to read.
In addition, he was quite funny in "Murder by Death" playing a blind butler.
First of all, I love Python. I get to program in Python all day.
However, I often wonder if Python's assignment methodology confuses students that move on to other languages.
In Python, an assignment is actually a naming operation, and not an assignment. On the surface, this seems to be the same thing, but it really is different. The other languages, with which I'm familar, do not operate like this.
I'm guessing (truly!) that last function call should be "except" and not "expect".
Well, not exactly lip service. Compared to their counterparts, even though they still spend excessively, Republican congressmen apparently propose far less spending. I can't find the reference, but a few years back I remember a story that compared the average Republican congressman to the average Democrat. The average Democrat was attached to proposed legislation (as in sponsor) with costs something like four times that of the Republican (if passed).
Exactly. Came here to post just this.
The reason that the Space Exploration budget is shrinking as a percentage is simply because of the explosion in entitlement spending.
"... giving up control is anthem to them."
For future reference, that should be "anathema".
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off".
Yes, I said something like that (in 1986 or so). What people tend to miss, is that what I said there about C++ is to a varying extent true for all powerful languages. As you protect people from simple dangers, they get themselves into new and less obvious problems. Someone who avoids the simple problems may simply be heading for a not-so-simple one. One problem with very supporting and protective environments is that the hard problems may be discovered too late or be too hard to remedy once discovered. Also, a rare problem is harder to find than a frequent one because you don't suspect it.
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
Augustus St. Cloud, for one.
Interesting that the battery spec isn't on par with the competitors listed on their website. Both the Nexus 9 and the iPad Mini have in excess of 50%-more capacity. I didn't see any numbers on expected battery life.
On the other hand, the price and multitasking-approach makes it a very attractive alternative, to me.
Twitchy.com reports that Emil Michael is a former Obama administration White House Fellow.
I felt the same way when reading the trilogy for the second time. The first time that read it, I was quite taken with the psychohistory concept. However, between readings I had learned about Chaos Theory and I felt that I couldn't enjoy the story properly.
The gridlock has been so bad that the American public has voted to fix it. Yay!
Whoops, I meant to say "and for the Republicans to retain control of the House."
Perhaps, particularly in this last election cycle, the money would be better spent in the primaries. Clearly, the American voters wanted the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and to retain control of the House. For a number of reasons, that was the overriding issue, across the board.
If Lessig's PAC had worked to get more favorable candidates into position in the primaries, they might have had a bigger return on their dollar.
Roughly two months ago, we explored the question of whether Republicans were headed for a "wave" election victory in 2014. The results are in, and the verdict is unequivocal: Yes. As of this writing -- in the wee hours of the morning -- Republicans appear poised to win their largest House majority in well over half a century. They have won the United States Senate by a decisive margin, netting eight seats outright, with a ninth almost certainly on the way. They will actually gain a number of governorships -- building on their already-remarkable 30-20 advantage. And they've expanded their dominance of state-level legislative chambers. A comprehensive blowout. There are many things for conservatives to celebrate. An incomplete list, in no particular order:
(1) Senators-elect Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, and Thom Tillis are all winners of formerly-blue seats in states carried by Barack Obama at least once. Gardner tossed a perfect game in his race, beating Sen. Mark "Uterus" Udall soundly (by six points, with 89 percent of the vote counted). He neutralized the "war on women" nonsense and outperformed among Latinos. The national party should turn Gardner's win into a case study. Joni Ernst dominated Bruce Braley, winning by eight points. Adding insult to injury, Democrats also lost Braley's House seat. These 'precriminations' told the story. And Thom Tillis, who trailed in the polling average for the entire race, came from behind and ousted Kay Hagan.
(2) The last time Republicans defeated more than two incumbent Democratic Senators in one election cycle was 1980. In 2014, they've gotten four (Pryor, Udall, Hagan, Begich), with a fifth -- Mary Landrieu -- looking like a sitting duck. Landrieu garnered just 42 percent of the vote in Louisiana, compared to 55 percent for her two GOP rivals. She will need a miracle to win the December 6 runoff.
(3) The polls were, in fact, skewed. Toward Democrats. Significantly. Mitch McConnell won by 15 points in Kentucky. David Perdue beat Michelle Nunn by 13 points, easily avoiding a run-off. Tom Cotton absolutely destroyed Mark Pryor. Tillis wasn't supposed to win. The polls were way off in all of these races. And, I'm happy to add, the disgusting race-baiting failed.
(4) If the GOP takes Louisiana as expected, and if Maine independent Angus King decides to caucus with Republicans -- which he's reportedly open to doing -- the party will control 55 seats in January. Republicans were at a 60-40 disadvantage in the upper chamber as recently as early 2010. That's a breathtaking turnaround, mirroring Democrats' Senate gains from 2004 to 2008. Question: Might Sen. Joe Manchin be thinking about pulling a Jim Jeffords and switching parties, given what just happened in his state? That would be 56.
(5) Democrats insisted that Obamacare was not a big issue in this campaign. Republicans' campaigns blew that theory out of the waterand then there's this (a tally that doesn't include Begich or Landrieu):
almost half! MT @mkhammer: Damn. RT @philipaklein: w/ Hagan’s loss: 27 senators who voted for Obamacare won't be part of new Senate — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 5, 2014
(6) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has now beaten the Left three times in four years. And each win has built on the last. He beat Mary Burke by nearly seven points in a race that was supposedly "tied" two weeks ago. The Marquette poll nailed it again. Walker has been rewarded by voters for his courageous and successful governance in a state that hasn't been carried by a Republican presidential ticket in decades. And this perspective is just delicious:
So Charlie Crist lost as many races as Scott Walker won in the last four years. — Daniel Ehlers (@DanielEhlers) November 5, 2014
Three Crist losses, with three different parties. Good riddance.
(7
Interesting. I'm guessing this was after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, because that is when the economy tanked.
So, which Republicans voted for the ACA?...For that matter, what Republican support was needed to overcome a filibuster?
Apparently you don't know much about this history of what you are talking about. The answer to that question (which I think you suspected had no answer): the Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Snow.
So, the Democrats created this whole crapload to satisfy one Republican Senator? Even though they didn't need her vote and she didn't wind up voting for it? And it's the Republicans' fault? Talk about delusional!
They opposed it because they oppose everything that Obama does. Whatever he does, they support the opposite. No one cared about Common Core originally, and it was implemented in 43 states. But as soon as Obama said it was a good idea, everyone on the started freaking out and saying it was the worst EVAH.
Funny, I remember Republicans supporting Obama on:
The Home Heating Emergency Assistance Through Transportation Act
Nearly every key aspect of it comes from the GOP plan that Heritage came up with around 1989.
Right. A 1989 plan from a conservative think tank that never had enough support to even be proposed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. That's a plan that "belongs" to the Republicans. That's the 11,000-page Affordable Care Act. Right.
I know Democrats are embarrassed by the plan, the plan's rollout, the plan's implementation, and the plan's deleterious effects on our country, but come on! Face the music!
So, which Republicans voted for the ACA? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to garner those votes? For that matter, what Republican support was needed to overcome a filibuster? Which provisions were inserted into the ACA to get Republican support in order to overcome that filibuster? Geez, just own up to the responsibility for what your party has done.
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system?
Their memories are simply that short.
It has nothing to do with short memories. The overwhelming majority of Republicans never supported this plan. A single Republican governor of a liberal state supported a state-local version of this plan.
You know, until very recently, a Democrat President opposed gay marriage. So, does that mean that Democrats are so stupid that they can not see it's a Democrat ideal?
Are republicans so stupid that they can not see it's a Republican system? Because as a Democrat I wanted a system closer to Canadian Healthcare as it works.
Because a single Republican governor implemented a similar system in a Democrat-controlled state, then automatically, this is a Republican plan that all (or even a majority of) Republicans across the nation supported? What a stupid statement! It completely flies in the face of actual facts.
Every single Republican in Congress opposed this plan. Republican voters overwhelmingly opposed (and still oppose) this plan.
The Democrats had complete control of Congress and the Executive Branch and they passed what they wanted to pass.
This clusterfuck is all on them. If it wasn't so terrible, it would be laughable that Democrats keep trying to pin the blame on the Republicans for this mess
Right after the Supreme Court's decision to lift limits on campaign contributions, Democrats and their left-wing supporters assaulted the decision as a boon to Republicans, "the party of the rich."
This of course is part of a far-wider narrative — slavishly repeated by largely unquestioning liberal media — that the GOP outspends Democrats on campaigns thanks to big-buck donors like the billionaire Koch brothers.
But, as it turns out, that's a lie — as big a lie, in fact, as "you can keep your insurance," "you can keep your doctor" and "ObamaCare will bend the cost curve down."
By almost every measure, in fact, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the party of the rich.
Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members. And most of them are Democrats.
And contrary to the hand-wringing on the left about the Supreme Court's 5-4 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling Wednesday, Democrats far outspend Republicans on elections. It isn't even close.
According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1.
But what about the villainous Koch brothers, those conservative plutocrats supposedly seeking to control American politics? They rank 59th on the list of big givers — behind 18 unions and No. 1 Act Blue, the massive left-wing fund raiser that gives only to Democrats.
Indeed, a recent book, "The New Leviathan," says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, superPACs, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).
So Democrats don't really want to restrain money in politics. Just the money that goes to Republicans.