morbius

I think this is a bit disingenuous. I have definitely seen many articles on the web playing "oppression olympics" pitting supposedly privileged and oppressed groups against one another in literally every possible category, but these are usually met with scorn from rational individuals who identify as feminists or social justice warriors who believe that it harms the relevancy of actually oppressed minorities. There are fringe groups on every topic -- just as the Tea Party isn't representative of the visions of Libertarians and Islamic extremism isn't representative of the views of most Muslims, most radical exclusionary feminism isn't representative of the views of the vast majority of feminists.

And as for Pycon 2013, most feminists I know argued that Adria had done enough by complaining to staff and had no right to post the employees' names and pictures on Instagram/Twitter/whatever, and that the individuals involved did not deserve to lose their jobs. But being a jerk isn't a prerequisite for being a voice for a traditionally oppressed group. It's just a result of being impassioned and hopelessly misguided, both traits that are indicative of naïveté rather than malice.

Or rather it didn't predict that in 1999 there would be more provisions for people with learning difficulties and special needs? Don't be so knee-jerk, there's a damned good reason for why we try not to harm kids' self-esteem anymore-- it doesn't work.

It's very interesting to note how futurists always nail the technological changes but ignore or otherwise turn a blind eye to sweeping societal upheavals that are far more difficult to predict. The archetypal patriarchal, white nuclear family is far less common than it was in the 60s, and use cases for appliances are typically genderless. Sure, there are still disproportionately more women in ads for cleaning products than men, but the growth of residential technology isn't centred around the sexist assumption that women are exclusively full-time homemakers as presented in the video. Instead, it's more or less adapted to the relatively egalitarian standards we live by today.

Unless they make their schematics and blueprints open-source, this isn't worth my time. Space needs to be fundamentally open, driven by visionaries like Musk and Bolden who care far more about the future of humanity than selling product. The hackneyed "open for business" commentator for the video and the seemingly copious patents they've filed for this vehicle don't give me much hope. A far more interesting venture is Copenhagen Suborbitals -- they've lost many key people over the years, but their vision is much more altruistic and deserves much more support than some VC-backed team who decided to apply the startup cash-grab culture to rocketry. (and yes, I do know that's an incredibly loaded thing to say on a web forum run by a VC)

Basically, conglomerates are very confusing.

> If I could install it (easily/legally) on any hardware, I would run it everywhere.

That's why I said personal computer :) Another OS X pitfall is that modern, vendor-supported versions are somewhat resource-intensive and not very fit for running on older or less powerful systems.

I'm going to get a lot of hate for this but if you really, honestly want a no-frills, easy to set up UNIX for your personal computer, there really is no better machine than a Macintosh.

My best guess is that the pronunciation is identical to 'papyrus,' though with an 'o' in place of the 'u' -- so something like pah-pyhr-ohs or pah-pyhr-oh-ess.

The inane listicles are just money drivers for BuzzFeed News, which is where much of the real journalism takes place. The site was founded in the late 00s as a simple lifestyle website in the vein of the AOL homepage but over time it's branched out into other areas, one of them being news. If they want to be taken seriously as a source of journalism (which they have in the past), then this sort of thing needs to be called out and punished accordingly.

This is a red herring -- the OP's post didn't say anything that was overly or gratuitously negative, at least not compared to many of the other comments on this thread. It's very true that saying that users are 'cheating the system' when they expect a libre product to be provided to them free of charge when the developers of said product themselves have added little more than a glossy sheen upon years of blood, sweat, and tears is an arrogant thing to say. Modifying GNU/Linux isn't new and it doesn't give you the right to say such outlandish things in defence of your own project.

Unequivocally pretentious, bloated, and comically self-aggrandizing. Much like the watch and its makers themselves.

It's a ballsy and maybe foolishly ambitious motto, but in Gitlab's case they actually deliver on it -- which, considering the current monopolization of project hosting is quite a feat unto itself.

The engine he linked to is MIT licensed.

Indeed, it is a gorgeous story.

We use the excuse of biological dissimilarities to get around the fact that most archetypes we've constructed have been artificially constructed -- gender, relationships, and socialization all revolve around certain attributes that are very arbitrary and have little, if anything, to do with biological characteristics. The controversial "wire mother" experiment carried out by Harry Harlow[1] proves this to some extent.

Another story much like the one in the NYT article, if you're interested: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/20/387309723/pain-but-no-regrets-...

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow

The smoke plume is characteristic of SRBs, which have a very good thrust-to-mass ration but relatively low specific impulses.

If you've ever seen a Shuttle launch, the long and smoky plume and the rocket "leaping off the pad" will look very familiar.

What you're describing seems to me like blasé, and it's a fairly well-documented phenomenon.

In most industrialized countries, the population has actually been declining. Low survival rates of children in Middle Eastern and African states and the lack of easily accessible contraceptives (or cultural implications of using contraceptives) have led to a dramatic upshoot in population there. With more education and the eradication of disease, this won't be as big of a problem in the future as it currently is now.

Oh dear, you brought that up.

I predict the stream of CISPA defense comments from tptacek in 5, 4, 3, 2...

...unless he has better things to do (I hope)

Unmanned launches, yes. Manned spaceflight, and astronauts themselves, have to adhere to extremely strict standards to maintain safety. Those standards cost $$$, time, and require highly educated and resourceful people.

The economies just don't scale. It costs a few thousand dollars to fly a transcontinental flight on a 777, and passengers don't have to be trained in all types of contingency situations like astronauts do. The cost for a single Shuttle launch used to be an eight-figure sum.

Someday getting to space will be as simple as a transcontinental flight. Unfortunately, rockets aren't the way we're going to get there.

It's fairly obvious that this feature was stolen from the BlackBerry Passport's touch-sensitive physical keyboard.

It irks me when an original and "groundbreaking" (supposedly) idea is presented by an unpopular company and ignored, but when a snazzy new startup or Apple itself decides to come along and rewrite it for the most popular platform it's lauded like sliced bread.

There are many prisons where inmates are encouraged to study business. This is a good, positive thing and if anything, it reflects the permeation of computer science down to even the most fundamental infrastructures of society.

We still have a lot of work to do, but this is a very, very good sign.

"nicer case" is subjective, although I will agree that official Apple models do have far better support and far better resale value.

That said, I don't think the average Hackintosher really cares about those things -- there's a reason why "hack" is in the name. It's a hacky and fun way to get OS X running on unofficially supported hardware, and I don't think support and resale value are high on a Hackintosher's priority list.

The quality of writing has definitely dipped since Anand's departure. Though this review does contain a lot of information, it seems like it was written in a very sophomoric way.

CoreOS was hatched in a garage. But I don't see them getting Apple-level anytime soon.

Akzidenz-Grotesk is an interesting font choice. Its kerning makes it less readable than Helvetica but its glyphs are beautifully designed and very distinctive. It's an iconic font, but at the end of the day I think Helvetica surpasses it in terms of practicality.

Still wonder how MTA would look like with this design.

I think that it's too premature to judge whether this effort is more justified technically and subjectively than Android Wear or any other competing efforts from independent vendors. Apple's device won't be shipping for another several months, and the demo given at the keynote today hardly scratches the surface of what the product could potentially do.

There needs to be an identifiable niche that these smartwatches could work with, and they ought to be marketed to that niche to really sell the idea of wearing a screen on your wrist. Similar to how Microsoft is positing that the Surface is intended to be an artist's easel, it's perfectly plausible for Google to market Android Wear to musicians, athletes, and early adopters -- but I haven't seen that effort from them yet. I get glimpses of this marketing approach from Apple's newfound moxie, but it still feels like everyone who makes a smartwatch is trying to sell it to everyone, which seems short-sighted given most people do not wear physical timepieces anymore.

There is potential -- but not now. Early smartphones were hollow and unfinished (yes, even the iPhone). Form and function will get better as time goes on, and there might be a legitimate use-case for devices such as these.

Just a question: have you ever been in a relationship? I'm just curious, because what other evidence do you have for the seemingly bold statement that women become more like their mothers as time goes on?

This has to be the most insane, cavalierly misogynistic comment I've ever seen.

Incredible. I'm laughing and crying at the same time.

Flat design...?

I got a 4. Pretty terrible result for somebody as young as I am, but I suppose myopia and the the spectral aberration caused by eyeglasses makes it harder to distinguish colors.

http://i.imgur.com/uLRW0YI.png