You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.
You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.
In the old days of 1.0 I could run it happily in a 64Mb PC. Now I can't run it for more than a day without it filling up 3-4G of memory, frequently crashing at this point (I assume because it's a 32 bit application now.)
There's been something very wrong with Firefox since 4.0, and while I know the developers have made heroic efforts to fix the constant leaks and bloating, every time they do, it just takes another version to break everything again.
I love Firefox, and keep coming back to it after using Chrome for a little bit and being repelled, but it's not what it was.
Why should an old person learn to use (in rapid succession) CompuServe, AOL, Yahoo, LiveJournal, Myspace, Facebook, Flicker, Pinterest, Instagram (and so on and so on), instead of his relatives putting a little effort into hand written letters and face time?
Because those handwritten letters and face time are going to become a chore very soon, and chores have a tendency to be "forgotten", especially when they only exist in the first place because their benefactee is too lazy to invest into learning modern communication methods.
If you make it hard for other people to stay in contact, they probably won't bother.
Reddit was started as an experiment in free speech.
I recall Alex coming on Slashdot a lot to promote Reddit when he first launched it. "An experiment in free speech" was not anything I recall being discussed. I also remember him posting on Slashdot while still developing reddit.
What I recall, is promotion of a general interest platform that was more open than Slashdot (unlimited moderations for all!) and less susceptible to vote brigading than Digg.
It was while ago, so I may be a bit foggy on the specifics.
I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.
First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.
Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?
Note: I am far from libertarian.
Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).
Iâ(TM)m not blaming âoebankersâ exactly, Iâ(TM)m blaming people who loan money to people who are may or may not pay it back and when they dont get paid back they go running to their central banks or governments and demand they get made whole at the expense of everyone else. Same thing happened in the U.S. in 2009 with the TARP and assorted other bail outs.
Yea the rating agencies really sucked especially leading up to the crash in 2008, but it doesnâ(TM)t relieve lenders of ultimate responsibility for their actions. If the credit ratings are wrong its the responsibility of the lender to figure this out, no one else.
Lenders collect interest on their loans partially to cover the potential risk they wont get paid back, the higher that risk the higher the interest they collect. If they collect high interest rates on risky mortgages and then when someone defaults on them central banks and governments make them whole it creates massive moral hazard.
If the Greeks were a bad risk prior to 2008, which they probably were, the interest rates they had to pay should have been higher and they would have been dissuaded from borrowing or lenders would have been dissuaded from lending to them. Instead the EU created a perverse system where risky borrowers (all of the PIIGS) got relatively cheap money and a lot of it and were incentivized to take as much of it as they could. The EU and the lenders are 100% to blame for this situation for throwing the money at them.
The PIIGS shouldâ(TM)ve never entered an economic union with Germany in the first place, they had no chance of competing with Germany locked in to the same currency. It was a win win for Germany on all fronts.
You donâ(TM)t actually know what you are talking about do you.
Most of the loans in question here were in fact loaned by German and French bankers to the Greeks prior to the 2008, Deutsche bank was one of the biggest. They could get somewhat higher returns loaning to Greece and they had some security because Greece was in the Eurozone. That security unravelled with the 2008 crash.
The ECB, EU, IMF gave massive loans to Greece in 2010, and most of it immediately went to extricate the German and French banks from their bad greek loans. If the Greeks has defaulted on the original loans then there would have been a massive banking crisis in Germany and France. The 2010 EU bailout was to save their banks more than it was to help the Greeks.
The Greeks just got more debt piled on top of too much debt and its totally destroyed their economy. Recently released IMF studies confirm the Greeks canâ(TM)t sustain their current debt load and it has to be restructed or they have to default. If they stay the current course with austerity and more and more bailout loans they are doomed.
If the Greeks had been smart they would have exited the EU and defaulted on the debt in 2009 and the people who made the bad loans, the German and French bankers, would have paid the price. Instead they got off scot free.
Iceland immediately defaulted in a similar situation, they had some short term pain but they rebounded, while the Greece has gotten nothing but worse and worse under the yoke of a corrupt European and global banking system.
For banking and loans to work there is a simple rule, if you are foolish enough to make a bad loan to someone who probably wonâ(TM)t pay it back, then you pay the price when they default. Instead the people who make the bad loans (i.e. bankers) get to keep their bonuses profits and everyone else gets to pay for their stupidity, greed and corruption.
Did you just argue that preventing States from letting gay people get married is expanding the State and "screwing" liberty, justice and freedom?
Generally speaking, when SCOTUS says "No, you can't pass laws preventing consenting adults from doing X", it's defending freedom, not restricting it. Unless your concern is the freedom of State governments, in which case we, the people, don't give a shit. The States exist to serve us, not vice versa.
Not sure about the GP, but I interpreted it as being about Microsoft moving to a subscription service, which Windows doesn't fit into. The sentence was:
Which is where Windows is now. Windows is declining, and as Microsoft moves to the subscription model, will die even faster.
That's the exact opposite of him saying "Windows is switching to a subscription model". He's saying "Windows will die, because Microsoft is moving to a subscription model". If he was arguing Windows was switching to a subscription model, he wouldn't be arguing Windows will die as a result of Microsoft moving to one, would he?
I would be interested in his reasons, but I suspect the logic is something related to the cross platform nature of most cloud hosted offerings, which Office 365 is an example of. If you can use Office on a ChromeBook, you have less need to use Windows. And if you're trying to make money by selling subscriptions, ensuring everyone has 24/7 access regardless of device is probably a good idea and a major selling point.
It's just the "fuck you" attitude that gets to us. When users demand features, you are supposed to listen. But nope, this stock answer is trotted out every time as a way to avoid doing work.
But it's not work. The developers are free to listen to you, and they're also free to ignore you. You aren't their boss. Refusing to treat you like you were isn't "fuck you". You just took it that way because getting rejected is humiliating and you didn't want to admit you misunderstood the situation.
It's so much better when the commisar decides & comes in to take all your excess food, right komrade? Make everyone poor so that none can complain that any are poorer!
You know, if you feel the need to lie about your opponent to make yourself look good, then that usually means you are the bad guy.
Or was it your indoctrination speaking? Some old Cold Warrior reliving their youth? A kid who thinks Red Scare is fashionable? Inquiring minds want to know how you got from "I guess this explains why we still have beggars" to "Make everyone poor so that none can complain that any are poorer!"
If I work everyday to earn twenty dollars, and every day you ask for a dollar, eventually I'm going to get tired of supporting you when I have my own financial issues to worry about.
If your income is twenty times mine, and even that pittance is dependent on pleasing you, and you still have the nerve to play the victim, then it seems to me that my best option would be to start a revolution and put your head on a stick. I have nothing to lose but my chains, after all.
Good luck, Judges hate it when you try to be "clever" with tricks like that, and rarely rule in your favor. Also don't forget that the diagram is already technically broken into parts (individual bits) by virtue of being digitized and sent through the Internet anyway, so that particular attempt to circumvent a ban is unlikely to work with any law as effectively written.