Can I just stay in Europe? Saves you the money and me the hassle.
Can I just stay in Europe? Saves you the money and me the hassle.
Competition, most likely. How many ISPs in Chattanooga?
For the single reason that is all reasons when it comes to whether something catches on or not:
Wow, I did not know the extent of the suckage. I've bought 4 top-of-the-line MacBook Pros in my life at $3-$4k each, and I do not think I'd buy this one! I am shocked that they removed the MagSafe connector. That is one of the HUGE reasons I went the Mac direction when I started buying my laptops. My kids still trip on the power cords and pop them out--so I wouldn't want to downgrade that experience.
Looking at the specs, I agree with you that they are underwhelming. I bought my current MacBook Pro in March of 2015 and here how it compares to the new top of the line model:
-I have a Intel Core i7 2.8GHz (can Turbo Boost to 4.0GHz). New one is 2.9GHz w/ 3.8GHz Turbo.
-I have 16GB ram. New one maxes out at 16GB ram.
-I have a 1TB SSD. You can upgrade to 2TB on the new one, but it'll cost you $1,200!
Yikes, hardly any improvement for a lot more money. And the change in ports is outrageous. I use USB, SD and the headphone jack all the time.
I really, really hope that these models DO NOT sell and that Apple fixes their ways before my current laptop hits the end of the road. DO NOT WANT.
Perhaps if you're an Emacs user, but Ctrl is not far away from your pinkies! Escape is traditionally very far away. I can hit Ctrl without moving my hand off the home row, but I can't do any such thing with Esc. So if you're a Vim user and use Esc a lot, then it makes a ton of sense to map Caps Lock to Esc.
Well, we have messed up many places in a misguided attempt to save them, (History of Yellowstone) so yes, doing nothing may be better!
Err... "Doing nothing" in this case doesn't mean leaving nature alone; it means leaving human modification of nature alone.
Emacs: it's yoga for your fingers.
The abundance of one species does not a healthy ecosystem make. I have a friend whose family owns a 1700 acre island off the coast of New England. It used to support an enormous white tail deer population -- and not coincidentally it had a plague of ticks, because everything in nature is food for something else. You would not have wanted to visit there back in the 1970s because the tick problem was insane. Everyone in his family has had Lyme disease, which also feasted on the swollen deer population.
Then in the 1980s the Western Coyote made it to New England, and a pack swam out to the island. In a single season they took down most of the deer herd, and now the island is a pleasant and sanitary place to live. And this is not some kind of odd aberration; this is how ecology works. If you disturb an ecosystem (say by killing off all the native timber wolves), weed species take over and they end up riddled with disease.
Weed species the ones who by sheer luck can live in conjunction with or off of large human populations. In a healthy ecosystem they may be cute, but an ecosystem dominated by weed animals can be nightmarish. I know lots of natural science geeks, and for the most part animals don't scare them. I once went for a walk with a girl who picked up a rotting coyote head and put it in her jacket pocket. She was TA'ing an anatomy course and wanted to show it to her students. But even she wouldn't go near a racoon, because unchecked by predation suburban raccoons are chock full of leptospirosis, salmonella and roundworm -- not to mention rabies. Those diseases can and do cripple, even kill people.
A world dominated by weed species would be quite horrible to live in.
Escape makes for a terrible Escape key. I encourage everyone to map their Caps Lock key to Escape, especially if you're a vim user.
For Windows, I installed AutoHotKeys to do the mapping. For Mac, the capability is built in. Go to System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Modifier Keys -> Caps Lock to Escape. Linux kind of depends on your window manager. I assume you're smart enough to figure it out.
Really? All of them?
Does it have to be all of them for there to be a problem we need to think about?
I confess your reasoning seems incoherent to me. You appear to be implying that if a single species would have gone extinct anyway it makes no difference how many wildlife populations people destroy.
People per se have almost no impact on climate. It's what people do and how much in aggregate they do it.
Environmentalists are often stereotyped as pessimists, but really most of the people I know who've dedicated their careers are optimistic that technology can address many environmental problems. Sure, they'd like to see the global population stabilized, or even somewhat reduced, because that makes the job of preserving the environment much easier. But they actually believe the sustainability problem can be licked, even without reducing the global population by much.
I'll give you one example of how an actual environmentalist thinks. I was at a meeting with the sustainability director of a major sportswear manufacturer, and he was describing the research they were doing into improving the recyclability of polyester fleece clothing. He made the point that scale is critical to assessing the environmental impact. For a small band of hunter-gatherers, wild animal pelts would be the source of clothing with the least impact; wool would have intermediate impact; a chemical plant that reprocesses coke bottles into polyester resins would have a ridiculously large impact. But if you are making hundreds of thousands of garments, the impacts are actually reversed: the chemical plant has the least environmental impact. Once you turn those bottles into fleece you can continually recycle those molecules into more fleece. He describes recycling as "living off your environmental income instead of your capital."
Environmentalists -- by which I mean the people who are actually working on solutions to environmental problems -- generally believe that even with a large population we can make use of the products of ecosystems without disturbing the equilibria that sustain those systems. As one civil engineering environmentalist I know put it: I = P*S/T ; impact is proportional to population and standard of living but inversely proportional to technology. You can reduce the environmental impact of home heating by reducing the number of people; or you could do it by people getting used to being colder. But you can get the same result by insulating your house and heating it with renewable energy.
It's actually the anti-environmentalists who are the pessimists; they don't believe in people's ability to adapt, and they anticipate nothing but suffering from trying to do anything about problems. Their version of "optimism" is to discount any evidence that problems exist, or to convincing themselves if we do nothing everything will work out for the best.
I'm an old time leftie; I'm perfectly OK with a study that says rich people are bastards -- if it can back that up. However I'm a nerd first -- particularly a data nerd. Sloppy inferences really piss me off.
I should vote for someone whose main business is building houses... and he's the one who is going to get rid of cheap and/or illegal laborers...
I sense a conflict of interest.
And have you seen the walls in the condos? The snoring! THE SNORING!!!
Your condo contract doesn't include a rule that you, as the owner, are held responsible for all problems your potential renters cause? Odd. Mine does.
This problem has a very easy solution.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.