What did they expect, when every time they get a new show with an interesting premise they cancel it before the first episode even airs for "poor viewership" or some reason? Boy, I sure can't wait to get a single season of Sandman before they cancel that, just like everything else I've enjoyed. The graveyard is so big now I can't even remember most of the names. One of the recent ones that stings is Jupiter's Legacy. That had great potential, but no, they nixed it before the first season was finished.

You already have literally the largest military spending in the world by a very wide margin. Nobody is going to invade. The only reason Americans cling to the illusion their personal arsenals will save them is the absurd power fantasy you could fight your own government if it came down to it. Sure, you might put a couple of unarmed suits down if they come to ask you to stop what you're doing, but if even a small detachment of National Guard came knocking on your door, you'd be dead before you cocked your gun, and if you genuinely believe that wouldn't be the case, the world would probably be a better place for it.

I tried a few of them a couple of years ago. I didn't even need to go LOOKING for the Naziz, Sovereign Citizens, and various other right-wing nutjobs. These networks are designed to drag them right to your incoming feed if you're foolish enough to follow politics, science, or technology feeds. It's frankly amazing how efficient social media is at delivering hardcore white supremacist messages to you. Anyway, some "free speech" commitment they have. Turns out Nazis don't like it when you say their torture and execution should be a televised sport.

Garland and her colleagues are very naïve if they believe this is just new students who don't know how to use their computers. I started my BA in 2016 at 28, an age similar to that of many of the newly-minted PhDs lecturing and tutoring (I had a bit of a late start). The youngest of my lecturers was two years older than me, at the time. I was shocked to see just how poorly they understood what they were doing with technology in the classroom. They struggled with advancing Powerpoint slides, and even bringing up Youtube videos in the middle of the lecture. More than one of my lecturers had trouble with the simple act of plugging their laptop into the HDMI port on their desk to display on the projector, and instead just lay the laptop down under the camera, treating it like an overhead projector.

I was kind of shocked that they'd managed to make it through a Bachelors, Masters, and PhD, without acquiring basic technical skills. Some of my classes demanded WEEKLY presentations, so you can be damn sure I knew my way around a slideshow. I just don't know how they got where they were with that skill level. Older lecturers, I'm sure, would have spent most of their academic careers with pen, paper, and hours hunting down dead-tree books in the library. I was frankly spoiled by never having to dig up a physically printed journal. The academics I'm tlaking about are people young enough they had no business not knowing their way around a computer. I did attempt uni in 2006 (long story short I bailed on that for a number of personal reasons), and even then it was already very tech-centric. Surely nobody who started an undergrad degree in the mid 2000s could have survived without developing tech skills, yet somehow they managed.

Wow, not just wrong and stupid, but an asshole about it, too. Been a while. Your six digit ID you're so proud of is not so far from mine, buddy. You joined a month before me or something? Try another angle. I was reading Slashdot for years before I bothered to sign up to comment.

As for the Superuser thread, plenty of solutions there. I still thing you and they have installed some dodgy extension that broke shit. Otherwise I'm just some magical creature from a fantasy land where things actually work.

Doesn't matter if it "resists dust much better". Doesn't change the fact a multi-thousand dollar investment can be rendered useless by a dusty room. Apple may have their "keyboard replacement program" for out of warranty machines, but you know what it takes to remove that obligation? A sticker on the box, making sure buyers are aware of the flaky keyboards. Under most countries' consumer protection laws, you're only entitled to a remedy if you can claim the seller didn't make you reasonably aware of an issue. It's like when you buy the shelf model from a shop, if the salesman points out a cosmetic scratch, agreeing to buy it is agreeing you're fine with the scratch. At some point, Apple can successfully claim that agreeing to buy their defective product is agreeing you're fine with it.

Lol. "Proof". Chrome doesn't do that at all. I've been using Chrome since it was released, and it has never done that to me. What did you break? What shitty extension did you install to cause it to do this? If that's true that is. All this really proves is you googled a URL for a screenshot.

I've used a Chromebook as my daily driver for nearly two years now. Literally nothing you've just said makes any sense at all. I use it for all of my notetaking, academic reading, document markup, research and assignment writing, along with plenty of light gaming (emulators and Android apps), and my Chromebook Plus never misses a beat. Pair that with the literally two days I get out of the battery (if I'm frugal the second day and lay off Youtube), and it is honestly the best laptop I've ever owned.

Now, as for Dieter Bohn, he doesn't think anything without an Apple logo on it is "ready". The Verge is loaded with hacks who can't formulate an opinion not spoonfed to them by their sponsors.

AMD has been first to market by a wide margin in a few categories, before (consumer grade 64 bit processors come to mind, for one), and have had indisputably the faster processors in generations where they were not first. Every time they have a clear advantage over Intel, they somehow trip over their own feet and just hand the entire market back to Intel. Really keen to see how they fuck up a solid, possibly year long, lead.

As a "millennial", I loathe incompetence, both below, and above. Incompetence below me can be worked around, incompetence above is irreparable. I can honestly say, despite having never been fired, and having had multiple jobs, I have never quit a job, I have only fired employers. When an employer fails to meet my needs, I replace them with another one. Baby boomers are baffled by this, because they've never lived in a world where they are inherently replaceable.

If it doesn't stream from Google Play or Spotify, why would I want it? None of my music is stored locally, anymore.

I'm surprised more people aren't voting Chromebook. My daily driver is the Samsung Chromebook Plus. It's seen me through a year of uni. Mostly note-taking, reading, essay writing, that kind of business. The battery life is fantastic. If I forget to charge it overnight, I can make it through a second day, if I'm frugal with the power (lower screen brightness, stay off Youtube). It runs Android apps better than most Android tablets I've owned. The stylus is the killer feature, for me, and it's significantly more precise and less jittery than that of the Microsoft Surface, or HP Spectre lines of devices. Speaking of comparisons to the Spectre, the display on the Chromebook Plus is far far sharper, with a much higher resolution, and, subjectively, much better colour quality than that of the Spectre's screen. The speakers on the Spectre were so weak, I couldn't hear them unless I was in a perfectly silent room, alone. Even traffic noise from outside drowned them out. The speakers on the Chromebook, while they won't be the life of the party, are loud enough. They can be heard fairly well in the coffee shops at uni, without being a major annoyance to other people, which makes viewing videos together actually feasible, without sharing earbuds. The 360 degree hinge is much better than the snap on keyboards of the Surface and Spectre, and much more comfortable than having a sharp edge pressing onto your knees if you're using it on your lap. It's also a lot lighter. The Spectre made my laptop bag painful to carry, while I frequently worry I've left the Chromebook behind, it's that light.

These have the versatility via Android apps to serve my needs as a student, while they have the simplicity to serve my grandmother's needs for her rigorous schedule of camping on Facebook all day. I get that they won't be everyone's forte, particularly if you need any specialised software, but web apps go a long way to filling that gap. For everything else, there's always a desktop. If you're a user with specialist needs, chances are, no laptop will meet them without compromise.

Hopefully this won't be like promising new battery tech that's always 5-10 years away. Assuming black phosphoros turns out to be a viable material, how long would it take until chips made with such transistors are actually mass-produced?

That only increases the urgency of finding out, if the person is really serious about being a parent. Children are supposed to have a life that's better than ours was; they are not supposed to inherit severe character flaws because we were too cowardly to deal with them.

I do agree, though, that there are lots of self-centered (and often emotionally immature) people who really do fit the description you gave. That something might be uncomfortable, or require some effort, or *gasp* involve admitting that they were wrong and need to change, these things are enough to stop such people from doing the right thing no matter how important it may be, no matter how lasting the consequences are. It's even harder to raise a child and help them become an adult when the parent is not really an adult themselves.

I'll tell you up-front that I do believe in a God and that this God is the uncaused cause that set everything else into motion. As this is a personal belief, it won't have much to do with my response to you, but I thought I'd mention it to add some perspective. By "personal belief", I mean "go form your own". I for one cannot stand the mindless group-think experience of most churches I've visited and the "security" of being surrounded by the like-minded is worthless. I think Big Questions like "is there a God?" are things you have to decide for yourself.

The massive mainstream religions have become like a corrupt government. They served a purpose and provided people something they felt they needed, but various control freaks long ago realized they can also be used to control people. Like Jim Marrs says, religion and the monetary system are the two major methods of controlling people. This doesn't mean that currency of some kind has no legitimate use (barter has lots of problems) and it likewise doesn't mean that religion can only control people.

I mean, I've read the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I can say that I'm well familiar with it, specifically the words of Jesus Christ. When I read the words attributed to him, I see exhortations to be humble, to love your neighbor as you love yourself, the importance of forgiveness, turn the other cheek, etc. I've read multiple translations and they all agree on this point. I just can't find any teaching of Jesus that can be construed as "murder, rape, torture, etc are all perfectly acceptable". Those calling themselves Christian and claiming to have read the same Bible should have observed the same.

The actual concern for this comes from the idea that the Creator wants to have a relationship with the created, rather than just watch us like an aquarium or snow globe. It's also believed that people have an inherent longing for such a connection and don't have a full life without it.

The perversion used to control people is this idea that you must behave a certain way and become a certain typecast sort of person or else you're faulty in some serious way. It's just a way to enforce conformity, not in a "top-down" way but in such a way that the conformists themselves would feel ashamed to appear otherwise.

I've also argued to more than one religious person, that I doubt a term like "god dammit" would actually offend any serious God-concept. It seems like a childish position to me, to envision God as some sort of scolding parent. I know human beings who wouldn't actually be offended by terms they dislike; why should Almighty God be more petty than they? It just makes no sense to me.

If you also had multiple witnesses providing written accounts of this, and said unicorns performed what appeared to be miracles in front of large crowds, and many people found this convincing and credible, well then you might be onto something.

My own concept of God includes a desire for us to question everything worthwhile, and this certainly qualifies. Einstein said "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". I personally wouldn't want to create mindless robots with no sense of awe or mystery, no genuinely satisfying curiosity; they would never reach their full potential. If I can see what would be direly wrong with that, I assume a being infinitely more advanced than myself can also see this.

If by "unforgivable sin" you refer to Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32, this refers to permanently rejecting the Holy Spirit. In the context of Mark 3:22-30 the Pharisees tried to falsely attribute Jesus's powers to Satan ("ruler of the demons"). This represents a conscious rejection, a misunderstanding so profound that its bearer actively resists truth, even when it happens in front of them. It's the idea of someone seeing an act of God and calling it evil. In many matters not involving religion, this is how psychotic people operate: they've convinced themselves that the wrong thing to do is expedient, justified, expected, etc and therefore good ("greater good" is a common one).

Like Bill Hicks mentioned, I personally suspect that we are God's way of experiencing Itself subjectively. That would make questioning, reasoning, and personal refinement all the more important.

Not exactly a front-page story anymore, but when I read your post, it got me thinking.