I was thinking that "staunchy" is a good word for "tending to staunch" -- for example, a bandage is staunchy when it staunches a wound.
But I was mistaking "staunch" for "stanch" -- ones stanches (not staunches) a wound.
So then I think, "staunchy", from "staunch" -- thus "tending to be loyal or devoted".
Now I find out that "staunchy" means "stinky".
Which kind of fits both ways
Is it "Formal Specification" or "Specification Formal"? Will the process take the form of "PHP to Formal Specification" or will it be "Formal Specification from PHP"? How about "php2spec"?
Once it got to the point that you could buy a decent (read: non-gaming) machine for about the same as the parts would cost, I quit building. The last one I built was an AMD K6-2/450 for close to $1,000 and the first one I bought was a refurbished 1 GHz PIII HP Pavilion for I think $850, to which I added an ATI TV-Wonder video capture card and a 32 MB video card with DVI to drive a used 18.1" IBM flat panel that I picked up for a song. (I think $800 at the time.) It came with Windows ME and I "upgraded" to 98 SE the day I got it (boot time dropped from about 90 seconds to about 45); later I put on Windows 2000 and that thing ran like a swiss watch for years.
Not as simple as saying that 'everyone' is all people. What is 'all people'? All Chinese residents? All people on this planet? All people that are paying taxes and who will actually be force to pay for this, or is it maybe all consumers of the goods that will have higher prices on them (and likely fewer choices of products) due to these 'heavy restrictions'?
Does 'everyone' include those, who are still in poverty in China (plenty more people are still very poor) and who want to move up in class but who will be prevented if prices for everything go up due to all the new regulations, licensing, taxes and generally growth of government that 'heavy restrictions' assumes?
It's not as simple as saying 'continue reducing pollution in the air'. In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).
Free market capitalism works towards improving the standard of living of the market participants, but a poor economy cannot fix pollution, only a wealthy economy can and you do not make an economy into a wealthy one with 'heavy restrictions'.
Poor economies do not let people even to get their heads up, never mind thinking about such rich problems as not burning coal but instead going nuclear. Interestingly enough, while China is burning plenty of coal (so does USA) but China is building up nuclear power plant capacity and USA is not.
China will fix its pollution by following free market capitalist principles of searching for cheaper sources of energy and nuclear will be the cheapest source.
"Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs." - how living a life of poverty, does not count as a cost to a society? I say it does. A life of poverty doesn't help you with medical costs and habitat costs either.
Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?
- nothing is free, people are paying for the energy, food, water and all other products that they consume and the prices that they pay reflect the economy they are in. By adding 'heavy restrictions' to the economy you are not helping to fix anything, you are ensuring that the economy will be poorer than it could otherwise and thus preventing the fixes, not promoting them.
Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.
- it is not ironic at all, USA is destroying its economy with all the government and destruction of individual freedoms and China allows individual freedoms and mostly free market capitalism to work its way towards prosperity, which is crucial to having pollution free environment.
It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions.
- take a look at what you wrote. This sentence is self-contradictory and at best you just didn't understand it.
It would be 'cheaper for everyone' to 'fix pollution' by putting 'heavy restrictions'.
Ok, who is 'everyone', what does it mean to 'fix pollution' and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?
This guy put together a 'low cost solution for everyone' who wants to 'fix pollution' and he didn't force any 'heavy restrictions' on anybody either. So anybody who is actually worried about the pollution can now pay for it to be fixed for themselves.
Now, of-course this doesn't fix overall pollution, but it is a distributed method of fixing pollution locally on a voluntary basis that is provided by free market capitalism (private property ownership and operation without government interference).
As a society progresses from pre-industrial (China before 1970s) to industrial (the last 40 years) its residents become wealthier and more affluent and as they become wealthier and more affluent they can now afford to start thinking about their environment and the best way to fix environment is to allow free market enterprise to market the fixes straight to the public, which then will decide whether it wants to pay anything at all (or more or less) for any such fixes, be it fixes on large scale or small distributed local fixes like this one.
To put 'heavy restrictions on emissions' means to restrict wealth generation in the country that was able to move 350,000,000 people out of poverty over the last 40 years (while the rest of the globe has been moving hundreds of millions into poverty by destroying individual freedom and thus destroying capitalism, destroying the free market).
China will be fine, it will fix its environmental problems and it will do so without advice from the economic failures that scold it here.
The power to destroy a habitat is nothing next to the power of Money.
One must really wonder what is so special about this location, that they A) feel the need to risk damage to the habitats to film, and B) could not be reproduced in a green screen environment like they do everything else.
Excessive use of green screen likely helped Episodes 1-3 be so terrible- wooden acting being one of the many problems. An actor's performance can only be improved by actually being in the environment their character is supposed to be in.
It annoys the hell out of me that my books are so damned expensive, which is why I wanted Mars, Ho! to be 100,000 words. I'd hoped that possibly Baen might publish it so it would be, oddly, far cheaper. I can buy a copy of Andy Wier's excellent novel The Martian from Barnes and Noble or Amazon for less than I can get a copy of my own Paxil Diaries from my printer, and Wier's book is a lot longer.
But how many professional programmers are academic?
Most of us work for business, government, ngo, not for profit. Where we really don't need to cite your work, just as long as it works and you are not stepping on someones patent or license you are OK.
Apple's being truthful here; The typical buyer of any random low-success indie app is also likely to have bought many apps from the top ten lists... and it's an absolute for the composite of typical buyers. If Apple wanted to foster an "App Store Middle Class" they'd have to take a patently dishonest approach and rig the system to stop promoting apps that are already highly successful.
It wouldn't be dishonest. Right now, a lot of the recommendations are things you've probably already heard of anyway. A policy of "discovery" recommendations would be no bad thing.