Re: well the Yanks seem to have this obsession with treating anyone older than 6 months
Not the Yanks, the Democrats.
7544 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I haven't reviewed the T&C for FB recently, but IIRC they specifically exclude children. If you are the parent or guardian taking your kid into the R movie, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you if kid sees something he or she shouldn't.
As to the video itself, assuming the posters above are correct that it is about a real life event, I'd say the context in which it was posted is pretty important. If it was mostly "Cool!" or "You gotta see this!" then yes, those persons probably need to be removed from the gene pool as expeditiously as possible. If on the other hand it was in the context of raising awareness and attempting to stop further atrocities it is valid public commentary. I'd say the same thing if it were a fictional depiction, which is frankly where I do have an issue with Freddy and his cohorts. I know I'm not a the firmest of ground there since I like Action movies and chopped suey flicks, but I am particular about the initial reluctance to fight, the build up of intolerable events, and the bad guy getting his just deserts at the end of the film.
I'll confess I deal mostly with USB these days, so I'd be hard pressed to come up with one of the exact pin-outs. But what I do recall from back in the days when I was the tech writer documenting them is that RS-232 was the biggest fricking non-standard standard I'd ever come across. You needed pretty much needed the spec for the specific device in front of you to make sure you were using the exact right pins, and it got even worse when you had to convert that fat 25-pin for the peripheral to the 9-pin on the PC.
just one small problem with that exceedingly narrow minded comment.
...
If you had bothered to follow the link and check on the congress critters, then wiki'd each of them, you'd find that it is a purely partisan Democrat proposal. Not a single Republican co-sponsor on the list.
Well, if you were Sammy, yes; but only because you'd be out of cash.
Sammy on the other hand will spend some of theirs to appeal it if the ruling is too in favor of Apple. Apple will do likewise if the verdict is in favor of Sammy. Basically it won't end until it gets to SCOTUS.
Keep reveling in your hatred of the rich and stay poor.
Even if the money all went back to the shareholders, the shareholders are the ones who put the money at risk, and the execs are the ones who took the chance on the business plan. Eventually they spend the money on something, and that powers the economy. Even if they just stick it in CDs at the bank, that makes money available to other businesses through bank loans. The rich don't get that wy by sitting on their asses.
True, but here's the catch and the one time OSS is at a disadvantage to closed source: Opera can read all the source code for Mozilla. So if they see code there which matches code used to implement something they regard as a trade secret, they get to file for it.
Personally I think the specific infringement needs to be part of filing charges. I don't know how to structure it so the Trade Secrets stay secret, but there ought to be a way to do it. In this case, I would think the previous NDA should be sufficient.
Depends on your working style. I frequently have multiple windows of the same app open, comparing information for one screen with something in another. I also prefer to have menus where I can see what is what as opposed to hidden context sensitive crap.
Choice is what is critical for this. The skin on the app should be configurable so either you or I can work efficiently with the application.
It is quite straight forward. The difficulty lies in remembering how stupid the average person is, and then remembering that half the population is dumber than that. Or bloodied minded about their stupidity.
If I have a bunch of stuff I normally go to a person manned aisle. If only a few I will take the self-checkout lane. The self-checkout is slow because the computer has to check each step of the process before allowing you to continue. So you can't throw an item in the bag and scan the next one before the system has had time to register the weight of the processed item. Clerks can do that because they are the check against theft. The other day I was at the store with my female roommate. She kept trying to scan things faster than the system would register the weight and got all flustered when the "unexpected item in bagging area" alarm went off. She just couldn't cope with being faster than the computer. She is mind you, a pretty good mechanical engineer and makes more at it than I do as a help desk tech.
You wouldn't because you're already past the selector. The question isn't if there's a difference between them within the group of people who do the work, the question is whether they are being drawn from the original pool with equal probability.
The problem comes when you attempt to define "original pool" for purposes of the experiment. I would define the original pool as "those with the ability to do the work who also have an interest in doing it." If that population is 50/50 male female, the number of workers would be 50/50. If for some reason that breakdown was 20/80 in a fair worker selection the worker breakdown would also be 20/80. At this point the question becomes what is the "some reason" the population moves to 20/80? If the reason has to do with sexual discrimination, there is a problem. If the reason has nothing to do with sexual discrimination there isn't a problem. But the assumption whenever this issue arises is that there cannot be non-sexual discrimination reasons for a 20/80 split.
It would need at least one more zero on the end before being a lottery sized payday. And given legal fees, is actually not unreasonable. Non-court time for lawyers starts at $250 an hour and goes up. Court time starts at $400/hour and goes up. And those are bottom of the barrel lawyers, not the sort of people you'd want actually arguing a valid claim.
And they think it will make their lives easier
For God knows up till now it's been hard
But the game never ends when your whole world depends
On the turn of a friendly tort
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
On the turn of a friendly tort
None of the three examples presented in this article have clear benefits to the USA. Which is a perfectly good reason to require precisely the sort of reporting being required by the proposal. NSF is already politicized, this is just an attempt to weed out some of the leftwing loons.
everybody in the healthcare chain who is authorized to see the appropriate sections of my personal medical data (in the US this would include my insurance information)
I also see how bright the glowing red concentric circles surrounding such a system would be for data thieves.
And given how porous our systems to protect actual state secrets are, I therefore find myself not so keen on implementing such a system despite its medical utility.
Not an entirely complete economic analysis. If the wages go up, then the price of the widgets go up. Depending on the slope of the demand curve, demand may fall off to quickly to continue to produce said widgets at a price where you can reasonably continue to talk about a market for the widget.
In this particular case I don't expect the slope to be steep enough for that to be the issue, but that still needs to be part of the analysis.
Guess you missed the bit where it said it was for EPI. Which means its the sort of dredges even the National Inquirer wouldn't see fit to print on this side of the pond. If you aren't familiar with the National Inquirer if you think of EPI as the equivalent of the Tobacco Institute, you'll be on the right wavelength.
Rules and regs always vary from place to place.
In the US, the regs are actually that you can't profit from holding an elected position within the charity. After that, you can spend all your money on staffing and not technically run afoul of the law. You might get into serious trouble with your donors, but that's not a legal issue. It's one of the reasons financial planners recommend checking with agencies that rate the effectiveness of charities before donating.
right, like they were for Fast and Furious, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or that poor family in northeastern Pennsylvania that served years in prison for child sexual abuse before it turned out the kids had been coached by the DA.
In fact, in recent memory the only official I can think of who has been held accountable for his vigilante style rush to judgement was the DA in the Duke lacrosse case.
He wasn't killed as a result of this. Sadly he was dead long before the bombs went off. So there's no reason to go off on a similarly misguided vendetta.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't take caution after reading about this. Had he been alive he very well could have been killed over it. Or assuming he was clinically depressed, it might have been enough to cause him to commit suicide.
No, photographs are the first port of call, particularly given an active missing person investigation. Dental records need somewhere from which records can be pulled. Maybe the UK has a central db for dental records (although I doubt it), the US does not. That they had to go to the records means the body probably was badly decayed.
That was going to be my minor nit with his post.
Also, given what the family has been through, leaving it at "no foul play is suspected" would be showing a modicum of respect to his family if suicide were suspected. Their wounds have been rolled in enough salt already this week.
In this day those institutions are as likely to engage in witch hunts as the crowd sourcers are. I'll take the crowd sourcers over the official institutions if for no other reason than the crowd sourcers are subject to public criticism and possible legal reprisals.
He also thinks the people in charge are working on pumping all the profits out before dumping the stock. And I think he was making an objective not emotional argument. He owns an iPhone and worked for a retailer who moved lots of electronic kit for whoever was hot at the time.
His comparison of Apple to Android phones: Android probably has better tech at any given price point, but Apple have longer support cycles. He thinks if you buy an iPhone you'll probably have support for 5 years, whereas with Android you'll get 2, maybe 3.
He credited Jobs with being a marketing genius for creating demand and maximizing profit. He noted that Jobs typically (like Sony with the Wii) held back production to create demand and desirability for the product. His specific example was the iPhone version that Conan OBrian got ahead of almost everyone else. And that if you actually had the same model phone at the time Conan was bragging about it, it elevated a certain status for you. The recent iPhone release didn't have that kind of hold back, elan, or profitability for the product.
I personally don't want to be involved in those kind of rat races, which is one of the reasons I tend to avoid Apple. But if that's the market where you are making your profit, it seems to me you have to continue to play to your strength. And shifting into mass market where MS and/or Google pretty much have the high and surrounding ground advantages is generously described as suicidal.
That was my assumption as well. And I'll take it a step further. I'll bet the bug is with the bank code, not the Virgin processing. Because what we have here is one person making a huge hoopla about something that is bound to happen from time to time. If the bug were on the Virgin side, they'd be flooded with the issue.