Why 70 years, or why 1946? Tried Googling but didn't see answer. I had thought carbon dating was pretty inaccurate anyways, didn't think it worked on such small time scales. Maybe this is a joke that went over my head.
I wouldn't have guess such small amounts of radiation in the atmosphere would interfere with carbon dating, but I know literally nothing about how it works. Seems like solar radiation and such would be a bigger contributor?
What size? Make sure you've enough room is my first generic piece of advice. Then I'd suggest a list of games people want to play so that everyone is patched and ready to rock.
And Saturday night is pizza night. No exceptions. Rock band/console multiplayer highly encouraged.
I think we should have an official "taps aff" holiday when the temperature goes about 10C for the first time and Scots can start sunbathing, wearing shorts and flip-flops.
That almost makes up for the over-spends on the Edinburgh trams, and the Scottish Parliament!
(Speaking as an Edinburgh bloke who lived through the significant disruption down Leith Walk for a tramline that was never built; I'm not bitter. Though nowadays I live abroad. In a city with multiple tram-lines.)
There are some ORM's where you define the schema in the application code and it alters the DB schema on the fly, but that seems dangerous, too.
What I would do, given Rails' existing framework of "programmatically discover the table schema and magically generate logic from it", is set it up so that it observes uniqueness constraints and programmatically adds the validation when found. Also, the adapters should interpret server error messages, throw a custom exception class for "uniqueness constraint failed", and ActiveRecord should catch this exception class and turn it into a failed validation when you attempt to save a record.
If that's too much work, just be fucking honest, remove the uniqueness validation (because it's completely useless), and be upfront with us that we have to roll our own solution for it.
I got the online subscription a year ago, and even though I forget to download the issues from time to time, I love it. Great writing, interesting topics, great design. I'd love to have the print editions at a decent price, too, though. But digital is good enough (and is stupidly cheap I think, for the quality)
> I forget to download the issues from time to time
Same here, so I wrote a Python script (Selenium) that downloads the new issue and emails it to me. The quality to price ratio is amazing, I love Nautilus.
I can get a whole book for $12, perhaps two on offer. The price/hour doesn't quite compute. New Scientist is £44/12 issues in the UK making it objectively about twice the value for comparison.
That's a very strange measure of value for something you've admitted you want. I get it and sympathise if you can't afford it, but just arbitrarily calculating price per hour is very strange to me.
Hell, you can get whole books for $0.01 on Amazon.
Books are a different equation, a different tier if you will. With a newspaper, a large part of what you are paying for is currency. Books can be timeless. Magazines are somewhere in between, immediacy of info is deprioritized somewhat in exchange for increased depth, but not as much as books... Old magazines lose relevancy, just not as quickly as newspaper.
Dollars per time spent reading is a poor metric, IMO.
Let me paraphrase it - if there's a dozen of streaming services, and one of them does misbehaves, it gives you a reason to pirate? That's a really poor excuse (or if that's a joke, then it's a poor one too).
It highlights a very serious issue, though - an increasing number of services use all kinds of crazy DRM that only result in great inconveniences for the paying user.
Compare that to the relative simplicity of having your music, books, etc. as a plain file, and you can see where the problem is: paying gets you less, rarely more.
I think you are generalizing "paying" to "subscribing to a streaming service" here, which I don't think is entirely fair.
You can still pay for your music the old-fashioned way, by buying songs on Amazon MP3, iTunes, etc., which will yield you DRM-free, plain MP3 / AAC files that you can use where and how you want to (unless, apparently, you entrust them to iTunes and enable iTunes Music...).
And while the book industry unfortunately hasn't quite followed the same path, there are still many great sources for books around that also provide you with DRM-free, high quality files (e.g. OReilly, Packt, lots of smaller publishers).
> You can still pay for your music the old-fashioned way, by buying songs on Amazon MP3, iTunes, etc., which will yield you DRM-free, plain MP3 / AAC files that you can use where and how you want to (unless, apparently, you entrust them to iTunes and enable iTunes Music...).
This is true now, but it wasn't always; it's a hard-fought right that should be appreciated rather than taken for granted. (Not to say that you are so taking it, but a superficial reading of your post might sound that way.)
Like? I feel that we've reached the stage where it's pretty easy to pay for digital music/streaming at this point. As far as saying that it's almost entirely easier than pirating music.
When you stream music/buy from iTunes you have to deal with drm, latency, shitty software that can't easily be customized, stream drops, data charges, needing to be on the internet.
When you pirate music it's the same as searching spotify, except you click download instead of play and you get files that work forever on any device. Storage smaller than your fingernail fits a straight month worth of music for $20 and works just as well if you're in the mountains as when you're on the train to work.
> 1. Spotify - doesn't allow you to buy premium (which is availble worldwide) if you have a non-US credit card.
if you live in a country where spotify is officially available[1], you can buy premium with your local card (i pay about ~7 usd/23 brl for a two people family plan).
It's not just one misbehaving streaming service, is that there is an incentive for streaming servicrs to do that (lock-in) and little danger they would face when doing this.
I am from Brazil, we have stores and street vendors that sell pirated stuff, frequently more expensive than the original... people buy it due to better service and ease of payment. (example: pirated freeware, that was fan translated, while the original is only in a language noone knows here.)
If I'm given the choice between a free proprietary, inflexible system like Apple Music, and paid DRM-free content that I own and can keep as long as I want (basically, paid pirated content), I'll choose the latter.
Presumably any sort of judicial order or action overrides copyright. You can't get out of a mug shot if you're arrested because you happen to be wearing an Armani shirt.
