They should and mactex should basically be the same as texlive as I believe that is what it is created from, if someone wants a gui for the mac I believe http://www.uoregon.edu/~koch/texshop/ is popular
Treating all customers as morons is certainly a bad idea - but so is treating all customers (including those who are morons and/or assholes) as kings, very often.
It's a tradeoff between the asshole customer's money being just as good as the pleasant customer's, and the effort you have to expend to get it.
A customer who repeatedly ties up service people for hours with baseless, aggressive complaints about their $20 purchase is simply not a customer worth having.
Definitions have nothing to do with truth, they serve only to clarify communication by establishing a common language; and mathematics as a whole makes no claim regarding the truth of axioms, only what a set of axioms do and do not entail.
There may be disagreements in matters of taste as to what Choice of axioms (har har, little joke there) one makes, but given a basis of axioms to work from--rarely more than a handful--the rest is, for most purposes, not at all open to interpretation.
You'd be surprised. The first thing that comes to mind is modern macro-economic forecasting, which is built on a host of controversial axioms. These forecasts are little better than Roman augury, and one could argue they are actually a net negative because they give us the false pretense of knowledge.
Using game theory to make predictions, expected utility theory, etc the list goes on and on (sorry to pick on economics, I'm sure there are plenty of other fields that suffer the same problems).
In fact, the problem with the axioms your talking about isn't that the math is wrong, its that the axioms aren't "true" of the real world.
Not that what you are saying isn't important, but you are talking about two completely different things. I mean, compare the axiom of choice to "people maximize expected utility." One of them is about the pillars of mathematics/logic, one is about how people act.
While I completely agree, and upvoted you for it, I think the implication of this is more along the lines of "whoa, the NYT is no longer the formost producer of breaking news (mostly.)"
The NYT should focus more on investigative reporting and analysis, and Twitter should stick to being about getting information out there as fast as people can type. To each it's own, right?
EDIT: To those who downvote, I'm curious as to why you did; this makes a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to hear contrasting opinions.
EDIT2: I think I must not have been clear at all: I agree with the OP. Completely. I'm just saying that no, the NYT doesn't care about getting out information as soon as possible. BNO does, that's why they're slightly better than the NYT at it. Twitter delivers a little bit of news in small bites – for some, that isn't sufficient (and it isn't for me either, though Twitter is a nice heads-up for when I'm not watching the news). But bites of news can be transmitted in 140 characters, or at the very least they can contain links to news (such as, again, BNO's links.) I don't see the controversy here, but I suppose that must be the Twitter kool-aid.
A minute later, at 2:54 p.m., the news was in the Breaking News Twitter feed. Two minutes later, at 2:56 p.m., the New York Times had the news in its Twitter feed, and word of the result buzzed into my phone via the Breaking News app. Three minutes after that, at exactly 2:59 p.m., the NYTimes.com news alert showed up in my email inbox
All of this happened in a span of time shorter than the interval at which most email clients check for new mail. I think the case against NYT here is overstated. And this news was about the outcome of a sporting event which is exactly one bit of information which becomes available at a predictable time. Basically it comes down to who can hit the button faster. When real news happens (a natural disaster, an assassination) it will take at least those few minutes to figure out WTF happened and write it up.
I didn't down vote you (I actually up voted you because I felt bad) but I could guess as to why others would.
A tweet is not news. So to say "the NYT is no longer the formost producer of breaking news" comes across kind of obnoxious to those not drinking the Twitter kool-aid. I mean, I've been able to get sports scores texted to my phone for at least a decade now but I don't recall anyone saying "text messaging had replaced news organizations as the foremost producer of breaking news"
Beyond that, and this is one of my own personal pet peeves, Twitter doesn't "report news" well. Sure a sports score is easy but on everything else it doesn't really shine.
Well, there is only so much context you can give in 140 characters regarding the national importance (to Canada) that the game had and the significance of winning the gold in their national sport.
If you actually cared about who won, you watched the game, and probably knew before Twitter could tell you.
I believe this has more to do with Canada beating the US than people surprised at Twitter being able to break news faster then the NYTimes. The latter would of been news in 2008.
I worked at a lab programming for minimum wage when I was 15; this isn't sweatshop work. Children are allowed to work in the US, too. (Though, certainly, not at factories.)
The title is is misleading, as well: Apple contracts these oversea factories; they don't hire or force children to work for them. It's all a bit inflammatory.
Ah...the old imperial justification. Apple doesn't directly hire the children to work in the shops so their moral obligation ends there. I'll bet those kids even earn more than would have made if Apple hadn't contracted out to the factory.
I wonder if your working conditions were the same as the Chinese kids' working conditions. Hmmm...I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in.
"I wonder if you would be willing to work under the same conditions as these kids work in."
That rather depends upon what the possible alternatives are, doesn't it? The average middle-class, privileged westerner wouldn't, but the average middle-class, privileged westerner has much better options--and for that matter, turns his nose up at the idea of living without cable TV or a microwave oven.
If there's a way up to the developed world's standard of living that doesn't involve sweatshops, it hasn't been discovered yet. Thankfully, the sweatshop stage is growing shorter and shorter over time.
Indeed. In the west, we have high safety and comfort standards, and expect children to spend their time learning and playing. These are luxuries, and not everyone can afford them. In places that cannot afford them, the alternative to sweatshops and child labor is not nicer work environments or idyllic playtime. It is crime, prostitution, or starvation.
Alien as it may seem to our culture of riches and comfort, there are places where these jobs are a significant blessing. Slavery is evil, and should never be supported by the west. But taking a job from a willing worker (or even a child), in a poor country is NOT helping him.
I'm from the Canal Zone. I grew up there. I'm a former American colonist. The bulk of the workforce was Panamanian. Their wages were much lower than American wages. The justification by we Americans was that they were paid better by the Company than they would get in Panama. It's the standard imperial justification and it's wrong.
Panama has done quite well without America and their wages have improved. This isn't universally true but the justification that this is just something that every country must go through is wrong factually and morally. It is immoral for us to profit off of forced labor, unsafe working conditions, and child labor. That our country turns a blind eye is repugnant.
If the choice is between paying someone in another country the same amount you'd pay someone at home and not hiring them at all, the simple fact is, they're not going to be hired at all. The unspoken assumption, of course, is that we can let the whole rest of the world languish in poverty so long as we're sure that every appliance in our electrified houses and every damned faucet for our hot and cold running water was made by American hands in an American factory. That's even a consistent worldview--but you have to acknowledge what you have to give up in order to maintain that consistency. If we have to consistently choose not to interfere with cultures less technologically and economically advanced as our own, that means no interference. That's a hard pill for most people to swallow. What's more imperialistic--contracting with a Chinese company for manufacturing or "rebuilding Haiti" (in our own image, of course).
No one said anything about forced labor. I included it in a list of things that it is immoral to benefit from. In that list of things was child labor; the point of the discussion. Sorry for not making this clearer. I should have left it out.
Corporations aren't building factories in China so that China benefits. They are building the factories so that they benefit. There are lots of reports of forced labor in China, of unsafe working conditions, and of worker exploitation. Our companies are fine with this arrangement because they fall back on the, "But we don't actually hire these workers. We contract this out." It's wrong.
The American public is OK with the arrangement because it means we can buy cheap crap. We don't mind migrant laborers in this country being exploited because we want cheap food.
What we lose sight of is the damage that this does to us and the world. That pollution that the factories produce in China to make cheap shit for us, in the long run, will do a lot of harm to China and the world. It's immoral for us to benefit from this.
What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being met. Make companies run the factories instead of hiding behind, "We don't actually hire the workers." The externalities need to be addressed.
"What we could do is make trade contingent on a base level of standards being met."
That's exactly what Apple does, and that's exactly why you're reading this story about Apple, instead of Asus or Lenovo or any other company--because Apple, unlike almost every other company, does the audits and enforces the standards on their contractors.
After rereading the article and reading the comments on this thread I'm inclined to agree with you as far as it pertains to Apple. The overall point I made applies though. Not necessarily to Apple itself but to behavior of Western companies in general.
I don't think that OP was ok with the working condition. Just that the article throws blame in the wrong direction. You can work as a 15-yo in many countries, but you have special law protection and lower maximum working hours. I don't see anything wrong with children working.
Meanwhile there's a much bigger problem: "The technology company's own guidelines are already in breach of China's widely-ignored labour law, which sets out a maximum 49-hour week for workers." If there were no children, would it be ok? Would the article even be written? This rule affects all the workers. And since the rule is "widely-ignored" I expect many more factories with even worse conditions.
Unfortunately "Apple fails" + "Won't somebody please think of the children?" seems to be more important than specific law being broken on a nation scale.
Right now, it's not clear what those conditions were; my comment was meant to address the only clear-cut part of this vague article: that 15 year-olds were working in a factory.
I'm not justifying poor working conditions, nor am I justifying overwork (though I find it interesting that we don't see it as criminal when professionals spend around 130 hours a week working.) I was simply astonished at the knee-jerk reaction so many have when children... gasp... work!
Substantiated claims that the working conditions of these children were poor can be addressed separately.
But, by all means, protect these children from feeding their families.
I find it awkward as well. I grew up on a dairy farm and helped out with chores starting at the age of 10. Technically that's child labor and it's fairly common place. The utility of my labor had the same effect of helping my family. Though one key point would be it was usually never more than 2 hours on school days and 8-10 hours during summer vacation -- the reason kids originally had summer vacation.
Why do you think the kids work there? Is it voluntary or involuntary?
Suppose it's voluntary. If so, then if you stop them from having that job, they will believe you've hurt them, by taking away their preferred life option. Correct?
Did you work sixty hours a week when you were fifteen?
"In its report, Apple revealed the sweatshop conditions inside the factories it uses. Apple admitted that at least 55 of the 102 factories that produce its goods were ignoring Apple's rule that staff cannot work more than 60 hours a week."
So there were 7 15 year olds at a factory in China. Most of the employees were adults here, but a few weren't. Perhaps this isn't an example of forced child labour, but rather some 15 year old being the primary bread winner for their family?
The social safety net does not have to be the same everywhere for us to make ethical decisions on the products we buy, or for a company to make ethical decisions about how their products are made. I'm sure these teenagers' wages were important to their families. I doubt they were saving up for a Xbox, but I can't exploit that fact because I want a cheaper Nano. I just can't. I'm glad Apple is taking care of this.
You're mixing things here. It's like you say you didn't steal the wallet, and also there wasn't anything in it.
Either those children working is a bad thing, or it's not. If they're making money necessary to feed themselves and their families, then you should be proud of paying part of those money.
Of course, we don't really know if it was a good thing. We don't know if they were 17 or 10, whether they really needed the money or how many hours they worked. The situation is much murkier then the knee jerk "I can't exploit it". And unfortunately not trying to think more about it doesn't help those kids one bit.
"That someone exists hanging off a cliff is a bad thing. So I shall remove the cliff." The only way you can achieve a positive benefit for these children is by paying their wages. Removing that payment is removing the benefit, and nothing more. Nothing good will come of it, save for a smug look on your face as they go back home empty-handed for the day, or as the factory switches to making parts for Dell or Toshiba instead.
When I was 13 or 14, I worked picking strawberries in the summer in Oregon. It involved getting up very early, riding a school bus for a couple hours to the fields, working all day doing back straining work for little pay, and then taking the bus home. I didn't need to feed my family, but I wanted to work because I wanted to have some spending money. I'm glad I live in a country where that opportunity was made available to me. Is this "OK"? Were those "unethically" picked strawberries?
That's not quite true – as you zoom in, you're no longer simply taking Re(c) = x pixel on the screen and Im(c) = y pixel on the screen. The more you zoom in, you're moving in on the Re/Im axes, which means you're no longer looking at integer values for the computation. You start looking at floating point values for x (Re(c)) and y (Im(c)) when computing the sequence. Therefore, the computer begins to do more and more floating point computations on, ostensibly, arbitrarily accurate fp.
The trouble with that is that the sole purpose of our product is to facilitate connections between people selling or offering goods and services. Without people and the stuff they want to sell, we've got nothing.
As additional anecdotal evidence, this is true for me, though I'm still using Python for my next project simply because it's a proven language with proven libraries.
But I'm certainly ready and interested in moving toward a more functional language -- I've always been interested in the Lisps, and have always tended to write code in the functional style, where possible (even though my first language was Java...)
it's taken me a day to "get" that - i'd been thinking it was a confused comment rather than a (questionable quality!) joke... have a vote back to 1 since i suspect you've been downvoted by others as confused as me.
