If you make the system operate like a game, don't whine like a baby when people play. And win.

Radical concept: quit dicking around with the pricing.

Not forever. When updates stop, updates stop. There's a relatively short time when old OSs still get updates.

An up-to-date 10.10 Mac shows webkit version 600.5.17. A 10.6.8 Mac has 534.59.10. A 10.3.9 Mac has 312.9. (According to http://browserspy.dk/webkit.ph... ) Current webkit nightlies (.dmg) won't run on 10.6 or 10.8. MAYBE I could build from source, but a) I doubt it and b) effectively no one, anywhere, does that.

(lest see, how liberals who like to say that "you have rights for your opinion" and then mumble "but only, if we agree" assholes are going to react :)

Since you asked -- having a right to an opinion doesn't mean having a right to be protected from social consequences from your actions taken in airing that opinion.

Which is to say -- you're allowed to be an ass in public. Other people are allowed to be an ass to you in public as well; such is the market of public ideas. Mistaking people who don't want to be friends with you / listen to you / do business with you in response to your positions with people who would censor you (that is, invoke government action in response to your speech or act to make make that speech illegal) is a mistake.

You might ponder what it means that you believe in what you're saying enough to shout it from the world only from a position of anonymity (or, in Cito's case, pseudonymity). If there are people you respect for holding their convictions, did they do likewise?

So, in addition to "affordable" housing, in your ideal world, the poor will also be provided (by someone) with "affordable" Priuses?

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "transit"?

Which, when done right, gets used by everyone, not just the poor. It was not so long ago a culture shock for me, as a Texan, when my (New-York-based) CEO would take the subway; now, as a transplant to Chicago, I'm very much happier not owning a car at all; my work is a 10-minute walk (hooray for urban high-rise living!), Costco a 20-minute bike ride (hooray for cargo bikes!), my more distant friends in town (or the corporate office, if I need to visit it for some reason) a $2.50, 40-minute train ride, during which my time is free to read, make notes, or otherwise do as I please.

Back to point -- no, setting up your urban environment in such a way that the poor need to drive expensive-to-maintain, expensive-to-fuel vehicles a long distance is not a necessity. Transit systems are subsidized at a higher rate than roads, but not by as much as you might think -- use taxes on highways are under 50% of their costs -- and adding capacity to a roadway system in an urban environment is prohibitively expensive -- particularly compared to adding capacity to preexisting urban rail. And if you look at the economic payoff from that subsidy -- by way of increasing folks' access to jobs -- it's an extremely clear win.

Smart urban planning -- to avoid the need for commutes in the first place by making housing as dense, and nearby to shopping and employment, as possible -- is, of course, even better.

(Back on the "expensive" part of long commutes -- you might find The True Cost of Commuting a worthwhile read, in terms of putting some actual numbers into play).

> It is not a very plausible solution for agricultural use-- too
> expensive. Do you realize that those people take the water
> and just dump it on the ground?

HA! I *wish* they would just dump it on the ground. I've driven by farms in the valley where gigantic sprayers are just launching it all high into the air, and a good amount of it evaporates before it even has a chance to hit the ground.

If you shoot a piece of space junk, it splits into two. You shoot each of those, you get two more. You shoot those, they disappear. Documentary on the process here.

Pinky out, near the exit, and over/under, right?

OK, show of hands... before today, who here would have thought "double Irish arrangement" meant something kinky?

It's like how a real terrorist would not joke about a bomb at an airport. But someone who does is detained or arrested, and time is spent by TSA that could be better spent looking for real terrorists.

I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.

Dear LAUSD,

No.

-Steve

Sent from my iPad

LaserDisc's biggest problem was that it was read-only. Compared to "I can watch AND record ANYTHING", the market for "I can only watch studio films" was tiny. AFAIK, the very first LaserDiscs were one hour PER SIDE, so even the first model could hold a 2-hour movie on a single disc. That was the point of its existence.

> Jedi may also need to invest in the DVDs.

Pro tip: you only need to buy the 3 old ones, not all 6.

Fucking fantastic. One more thing I'll need to turn off in every account on every computer I use.

I wish there was one great browser, and not three OK ones.