It means that a bunch of people who once thought they were somehow above or apart from politics find that they are not, and that the things that happen in the world constitute news of real interest to hackers. That's growth.
It's also misleading to talk about this as an issue of ideological purity. People talk about purity when the politics of the public figure in question are not extreme enough. The problem is that she helped start a war that killed rather a lot of people, none of whom are now able to lend their voices to the discussion, and those who wish to remember those people are obliged to speak on their behalf. You don't mind her politics, and that's cool. But no one's forcing me to pay Dropbox anything. So I won't anymore.
Unless the views that "unite" them are repulsive. If Rice's viewpoints were the polar opposite and we were all jumping on the bandwagon to boycott dropbox because they didn't support torture enough, would that be "growth"?
Of course not.
You don't like Rice's views on this issue, and want to convince people-- including the HN community-- that she was wrong on this issue, and that her views on other issues (warantless wiretaps, etc.) are dangerous for a business like dropbox. Moreover, you don't want to support dropbox now that Rice is a board member. Fine. But to claim that just because we all (or at least most of us) disagree with her views, that in and of itself means that we're "growing" as a community is genuinely dangerous-- because at some point, most of us are going to be wrong about something, and arguing on ideological merit is going to be the only thing that can "save" us. Simply saying that "we all agree, and that's growth" will just ensure that we're all wrong forever.
Be sure to test this to make sure it restores, but in my case it works flawlessly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDPzVdohrck#t=1m13s
Oh, and integration with the OS X recovery partition / OS reinstallation mechanism that allows you to point to a Time Machine backup as the recovery point for your re-installation.
TM has had a few problems, but by and large it is one of the quiet successes in OS X, and probably my favorite feature if the OS. Why Microsoft hasn't put something like it in Windows is baffling to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Ignition-informal-history-liquid-prope...
First things first. What I quickly discovered was that Logic _sounds_ better. Just dragging in a sample from you desktop seemed to reveal that logic was processing it in a higher quality. A weird thing, and maybe it's placebo, but everytime I go back to ableton I notice this. Furthermore, the bottom line is, my productions just sounds better in Logic. Maybe it's the workflow it encourages, I'm not sure. All I know is that no serious audio engineer would use anything else than Pro Tools or Logic for a serious recording, and I agree. At least that's my experience.
Regarding Reason: In my opinion, it has some of the best synths in the business. Which is why i rewire into Logic. A couple of youtube tutorials on Thor and you'll be going strong.
Ableton, well, I don't care much for it. The only thing i really miss is how easy it is to manipulate audio in it. A lot of people talk about how fast it is, but the design always seemed to get in my way. Personal preference i guess...
Edit: Clarifying a poor use of a pronoun.
I was under the impression that SpaceX was trying to make the first re-usable rocket stage, but I've recently found out that that isn't true. The space shuttle already holds that title.
I'm also kindof curious why they decided to go with a vertical-landing-design, instead of putting some wings on it and having it glide home like the shuttle did. Is that a weight-concern? Aerodynamics, mabye, but couldn't the wings be articulated in the same way that the landing legs are right now?
(I will admit some ignorance in this field. I'm definitely a fan, but I'm definitely not a historian or a rocket scientist)
As for gliding back: the Falcon booster does not actually achieve orbit-- when the main engine cuts off, it is on a ballistic trajectory back to the ocean. While it may be possible to design some sort of gliding apparatus to "save" a booster on a sub-orbital trajectory, it is (again, as I understand it), much simpler to simply adjust that trajectory via a boostback burn that reverses or slows that trajectory, and to then perform a suicide burn[2] to recover the stage, either on a barge or (on lower orbit missions) back on a land-based pad.
I am not a rocket scientist, nor do I have experience in the space industry-- these thoughts are just based on what I've read following the SpaceX reusability program as closely as I can for the past few years.
I do play a lot of Kerbal Space Program, though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle...
[2] http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/10307/what-is-a-sui...