There is a large difference between not wanting to post every detail of your life on SM and being introverted. In person, I can (at least appear) extroverted. It's a learnable skill.
I want people to be forced to learn math even if they have math anxiety. Why shouldn't schools teach social skills/how to interact with a group even if kids have social anxiety.
Well, it's not all they did. Because they needed to get one monopoly a different way. And the Office monopoly they really did get by dint of a superior product. They didn't even bundle Office file readers until... Vista?
They tried it for web browsing, and got smacked down.
Of course they used IBM compatibility to dominate office workflow. They established a couple of monopolies. But they didn't use one monopoly's market power to delve into another. That's what's verboten.
Please. Microsoft had trouble even fucking closing security holes because norton, etc. kept threatening legal action. And unlike Chrome on Androiud or Safari on iOS, olr Safari on OSX, they couldn't even bundle a browser.
Apple did have more monopolistic things, but they were less successful on the PC. And they'll be up next if this lawsuit works.
Nonsense, didn't you read what the biggest VR CEO said? It just requires better input from the user, better output to the user and better processing in between.
But NASA has no claim on the moon as the first there.
Actually, I thought it was the US government (through NASA) renouncing their right to the moon that set in motion the current state of affairs. Because we weren't always greedy assholes.
They didn't try. They asked an expert what would happen if they did try. I consider it akin to calling a lawyer and seeing if there's any course of action available.
Or, in your example, akin to sitting down to plan both whether and if to murder and having one item be a long list of reasons like "illegal, will likely go to jail, etc.". And then deciding murder is not a good course of action.
Of course the administration asked the question. There are many groups in the government. Some want to break into phones. This memo is showing there are other, apparently more powerful, voices that explain the security and PR issues associated with that.
Someone in the federal government's job should be to advocate for using nukes on ISIS. And that someone should have their points overridden by the numerous good reasons that's stupid. But you want contention to get the best results.
So if the entire thing is technologically unfeasible why on earth would you even study it?
Because someone was told, in factmultiple someones, to come up wiht a comprehensive answer to a technical question for non-technical people. They are supposed to cover all the bases. There are some good reasons for that. Suppose one of their "technical limitations" has been overcome already by the NSA? Suppose one of their other "prohibitive costs" is in fact bearable. Their job is to define the problem as completely as possible.
Questions like this getting asked by the administration makes sense. They don't know what is necessarily possible. Pointing out it's impossible is a good thing. It means this isn't like the Bush torture memos which had to come to the conclusion it was fine. It was an honest request for information, that hopefully is acted upon.
How is this a "problem with a system". The administration had someone who knows technology draft a report on whether something they wanted was possible. It's not., The report said so.
A memo explaining why X is impossible is a good thing. It means they asked a question and got an answer.
Heck, I wouldn't trust my opinion on technical matters if I got made POTUS tomorrow, and I make my living deciding them now. Because there are people smarter than me out there, and sometimes stuff is actually possible that I think isn't.
Ahmed didn't accomplish anything worthy of presidential attention. The authorities surrounding him did. Since the president cannot call them does on national TV, he does the same thing by inviting Ahmed to the White House.
It's the PR equivalent to owing a house in an area that [insert billionaire] wants to turn into his complex. You get a lot of reward for being in the right place at the right time.
In the US, the federal government is responsible for some things, and not allowed to intervene in others. Education is reserved for the states to set up.
In fairness, it's not how we would probably set up the country if we were doing so today, but government education wasn't on the horizon when we wrote the constitution, and "state's rights" were made very explicit because states had to be convinced to join.
In the second case, the school district overruled the principal and sent an apology letter to the girl. Which, really, is probably the appropriate response.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it also happened as a lag behind the studies that show it's more effective at teaching everyone.
There is a large difference between not wanting to post every detail of your life on SM and being introverted. In person, I can (at least appear) extroverted. It's a learnable skill.
I want people to be forced to learn math even if they have math anxiety. Why shouldn't schools teach social skills/how to interact with a group even if kids have social anxiety.
Well, it's not all they did. Because they needed to get one monopoly a different way. And the Office monopoly they really did get by dint of a superior product. They didn't even bundle Office file readers until... Vista?
They tried it for web browsing, and got smacked down.
Of course they used IBM compatibility to dominate office workflow. They established a couple of monopolies. But they didn't use one monopoly's market power to delve into another. That's what's verboten.
Please. Microsoft had trouble even fucking closing security holes because norton, etc. kept threatening legal action. And unlike Chrome on Androiud or Safari on iOS, olr Safari on OSX, they couldn't even bundle a browser.
Apple did have more monopolistic things, but they were less successful on the PC. And they'll be up next if this lawsuit works.
It doesn't matter. It's not a Google vs. Apple competiion thing. It's the small startup in a garage vs. Google thing.
Ah, did not realize I got chronology (and cause) backwards.
Nonsense, didn't you read what the biggest VR CEO said? It just requires better input from the user, better output to the user and better processing in between.
Actually, I thought it was the US government (through NASA) renouncing their right to the moon that set in motion the current state of affairs. Because we weren't always greedy assholes.
I dunno, boats have been copyrighted for a long time.
No, the fines need to be higher than the extra money they made times the perceived likelihood they will get caught.
Savings are part of that, but so are the extra sales because people liked the pep. So is the fact that it took six years to locate.
They didn't try. They asked an expert what would happen if they did try. I consider it akin to calling a lawyer and seeing if there's any course of action available.
Or, in your example, akin to sitting down to plan both whether and if to murder and having one item be a long list of reasons like "illegal, will likely go to jail, etc.". And then deciding murder is not a good course of action.
Of course the administration asked the question. There are many groups in the government. Some want to break into phones. This memo is showing there are other, apparently more powerful, voices that explain the security and PR issues associated with that.
Someone in the federal government's job should be to advocate for using nukes on ISIS. And that someone should have their points overridden by the numerous good reasons that's stupid. But you want contention to get the best results.
Because someone was told, in factmultiple someones, to come up wiht a comprehensive answer to a technical question for non-technical people. They are supposed to cover all the bases. There are some good reasons for that. Suppose one of their "technical limitations" has been overcome already by the NSA? Suppose one of their other "prohibitive costs" is in fact bearable. Their job is to define the problem as completely as possible.
Questions like this getting asked by the administration makes sense. They don't know what is necessarily possible. Pointing out it's impossible is a good thing. It means this isn't like the Bush torture memos which had to come to the conclusion it was fine. It was an honest request for information, that hopefully is acted upon.
How is this a "problem with a system". The administration had someone who knows technology draft a report on whether something they wanted was possible. It's not., The report said so.
A memo explaining why X is impossible is a good thing. It means they asked a question and got an answer.
Heck, I wouldn't trust my opinion on technical matters if I got made POTUS tomorrow, and I make my living deciding them now. Because there are people smarter than me out there, and sometimes stuff is actually possible that I think isn't.
This wasn't even advocated until the late 1970's. The guy who started that line of thinking (stockholder supremacy) was at GE (as CEO).
They totally were the superpower for a while, between the Spanish and the British.
Lenovo didn't do that already with their adware?
Ahmed didn't accomplish anything worthy of presidential attention. The authorities surrounding him did. Since the president cannot call them does on national TV, he does the same thing by inviting Ahmed to the White House.
It's the PR equivalent to owing a house in an area that [insert billionaire] wants to turn into his complex. You get a lot of reward for being in the right place at the right time.
If it wasn't for Private Joker, there would be no thieves in the world
In the US, the federal government is responsible for some things, and not allowed to intervene in others. Education is reserved for the states to set up.
In fairness, it's not how we would probably set up the country if we were doing so today, but government education wasn't on the horizon when we wrote the constitution, and "state's rights" were made very explicit because states had to be convinced to join.
Sorry bout that.
Too many people say that kinda thing seriously.
Why would it be tax free? Wages aren't tax free.
It's in fucking Texas. I think we can all agree that no one wants to throw good money after bad trying to teach teachers there.
They've already said, before this incident, that they wanted to move but cannot afford to.
In the second case, the school district overruled the principal and sent an apology letter to the girl. Which, really, is probably the appropriate response.