That's why there were several attacks in one week in Germany? That's why Parliament was attacked? That's why Turkey says you should be afraid to walk the streets?
It's convenient to blane the US, but it's not realistic.
Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.
Sure, we could take the position of weakness. Or, we could keep stomping anyone who annoys us, and protect our borders. That works too. But we can't do half-and-half.
No, that's what people don't understand. CU wasn't some general-purpose corporation, it existed just to pool resources to run a political film. That ruling did not allow normal corporations to buy political ads.
If you allow newspapers to run political commentary at all, then the very rich can get their message across by simply buying the whole thing.
Another point the court made is that the New York Times is a corporation, and does quite a bit of political speech, as directly permitted by the 1st. Do you really want the government saying this corp that exists to publish speech can publish political speech, but that corp that exists to publish speech cannot? That would be the end of free speech.
Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out. Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world. Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common. Let's not have that here. Islamic terrorists killed over 22,000 people last year, and it's an ongoing and increasing campaign. Keep the attacks here rare, please.
Most people misunderstand Citizens United. It actually helps level the playing field. I can't buy an ad spot big enough to matter, but if there are a bunch of like-minded people who can pool are money, we can. The alternative is the far-reaching political speech is limited to the likes of Jeff Bezos, who can buy an entire newspaper (this was the norm in the age of the robber barons).
Fundamental library code is either as fast as possible, or useless. You know know who or how the library code will be used, so you have to assume plentiful use cases where every instruction matters. The std::map code is particularly bad (even in CLANG) .
When you're delivering the end product, sure, don't optimize until proven necessary. That's a different world than library code. Not every thing is your thing, surprising as that may be.
Remember the good old days, when software companies added features that the user base wanted? It's true - many moons ago, the great software companies wanted to please their users, instead of their "designers". It was a grand old time.
My point was: you can't call here a bad CEO, because bad CEOs destroy companies, often quite quickly.
Stock price is the best guess of people good at financial analysis of the future financial prospects of a company. The wisdom of that crowd is generally better than you'd think. Of course, where they're wrong, there's lots of money to be made.
Were fundamentally blocked, I'd say, partly on ideological purity, but more on the fundamental corruption of the federal government: it exists mostly to protect the financial interests of the establishment donors. Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Open borders are great for those who can afford to travel to Europe on a whim.
Our government has been stable a long time serving those interests, and now, with that challenged (and thus the primary focus of all the back rooms), issues of actual like what to do about health care, are getting minimal efforts, mostly retreaded bad ideas.
Have you never worked for a bad CEO? No matter how well the industry, or economy in general is doing, the right person can tank any company. She was at least a mediocre CEO - likely better than that as Yahoo was already swirling the bowl when she got there.
There, fixed that for you. I (and probably most people) agree that job loss and increased crime are things to be worried about. Attributing both problems to immigration based on no credible data is not the way to solve those problems, though. It may not be overtly racist, but it is fear without fact.
The question was "why did Trump win". The answer is: because of answers like yours. Actual far-right parties are rising across Europe because of this lack of answers with emotional resonance. When no one sane will address the actual crime and violence, the actual effect on employment seen by people in their daily lives, people will turn to actual Nazis if that's the only party addressing their concerns.
Those "unemployment" numbers don't count the vast majority of people who aren't working. It's a scam number. But the labor participation rate - the % of the population actually working - is climbing off a long, very low trench.
Regardless, it doesn't matter if "unemployment in America" is good, these are people personally affected by it. Telling them "but its fine on average in America" doesn't help much. But, of course, most candidates weren't even saying that much, just dismissing people out of hand.
Same deal with neighborhood violence: all politics is local.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods). Most candidates responded to these concerns - the hot-button single issue for a huge swath of voters - with "shut up, you racist". Trump didn't. Why is it in any way surprising he had a strong base?
Only Trump and Cruz even presented an immigration plan of any kind. It was obviously going to be one of those two who won the GOP primary, but I'm still surprised that it was Trump. I think credibility of anyone who works in DC is just that damn low now with the American working class. So low they took "crazy" just to get "outsider".
Innovation is what engineers do when they create real products that reach many people. Ideas are easy, and an idea that no one turns into a product is worthless.
We cannot "sample" time. We cannot "stop" time. We cannot evaluate the opposite of time, or "not-time". We cannot directly "measure" time. We cannot directly "see" time. If we cannot evaluate these things, does time exist?
You only think this because you have been educated stupid. 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation. Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight 1 day (ignoring 3 other days) Time to not foul (already wrong) bible time. Lie that corrupts earth you educated stupid fools. Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong. Einstein Was ONEist Brain. Try My Belly-Button Logic. No God Knows About 4 Days, It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know ?
I don't see how that matters to the usability of its web client. Heck, it's the back-end technical mediocrity of Microsoft that makes me unworried about their own ability to gather demographic information on me and use it for evil.
No "innovation in distribution" was Netflix's claim, which clearly isn't true. As a viewer, since I never see movies in the first couple weeks of a run, digital was a huge jump in quality for me. But given the nearly empty theater around me when I go, clearly I'm in the minority as my habits here.
Here's a hint about innovation: If you're saying "more" then you haven't discovered any.
That's certainly not true. Doing something as a one-off, or in a way that it only works in very limited applications is different from figuring out how to make it mainstream.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why there were several attacks in one week in Germany? That's why Parliament was attacked? That's why Turkey says you should be afraid to walk the streets?
It's convenient to blane the US, but it's not realistic.
Then keep your troops, your drones, your guns, your bombs, etc etc out of other peoples countries.
Sure, we could take the position of weakness. Or, we could keep stomping anyone who annoys us, and protect our borders. That works too. But we can't do half-and-half.
War sucks. Lets not have one in our homeland. This is not a complicated concept.
No, that's what people don't understand. CU wasn't some general-purpose corporation, it existed just to pool resources to run a political film. That ruling did not allow normal corporations to buy political ads.
If you allow newspapers to run political commentary at all, then the very rich can get their message across by simply buying the whole thing.
Another point the court made is that the New York Times is a corporation, and does quite a bit of political speech, as directly permitted by the 1st. Do you really want the government saying this corp that exists to publish speech can publish political speech, but that corp that exists to publish speech cannot? That would be the end of free speech.
Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out. Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world. Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common. Let's not have that here. Islamic terrorists killed over 22,000 people last year, and it's an ongoing and increasing campaign. Keep the attacks here rare, please.
Most people misunderstand Citizens United. It actually helps level the playing field. I can't buy an ad spot big enough to matter, but if there are a bunch of like-minded people who can pool are money, we can. The alternative is the far-reaching political speech is limited to the likes of Jeff Bezos, who can buy an entire newspaper (this was the norm in the age of the robber barons).
Fundamental library code is either as fast as possible, or useless. You know know who or how the library code will be used, so you have to assume plentiful use cases where every instruction matters. The std::map code is particularly bad (even in CLANG) .
When you're delivering the end product, sure, don't optimize until proven necessary. That's a different world than library code. Not every thing is your thing, surprising as that may be.
Remember the good old days, when software companies added features that the user base wanted? It's true - many moons ago, the great software companies wanted to please their users, instead of their "designers". It was a grand old time.
Remove Nazis instead.
Learn the power of "and".
I'd like to remove all hateful political ideologies, even those wrapped in religious trappings.
My point was: you can't call here a bad CEO, because bad CEOs destroy companies, often quite quickly.
Stock price is the best guess of people good at financial analysis of the future financial prospects of a company. The wisdom of that crowd is generally better than you'd think. Of course, where they're wrong, there's lots of money to be made.
Were fundamentally blocked, I'd say, partly on ideological purity, but more on the fundamental corruption of the federal government: it exists mostly to protect the financial interests of the establishment donors. Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Open borders are great for those who can afford to travel to Europe on a whim.
Our government has been stable a long time serving those interests, and now, with that challenged (and thus the primary focus of all the back rooms), issues of actual like what to do about health care, are getting minimal efforts, mostly retreaded bad ideas.
Have you never worked for a bad CEO? No matter how well the industry, or economy in general is doing, the right person can tank any company. She was at least a mediocre CEO - likely better than that as Yahoo was already swirling the bowl when she got there.
Well, Marissa Meyer did it - and, in the end, she got tens of millions of dollars.
...and Yahoo! Went! Down! The! Shitter! Faster! ;)
Yahoo's stock price ~doubled under her tenure. She may have destroyed any engineering left there, but the business did well.
There, fixed that for you. I (and probably most people) agree that job loss and increased crime are things to be worried about. Attributing both problems to immigration based on no credible data is not the way to solve those problems, though. It may not be overtly racist, but it is fear without fact.
The question was "why did Trump win". The answer is: because of answers like yours. Actual far-right parties are rising across Europe because of this lack of answers with emotional resonance. When no one sane will address the actual crime and violence, the actual effect on employment seen by people in their daily lives, people will turn to actual Nazis if that's the only party addressing their concerns.
Yes, but its change relative to recent years is an honest gauge, not gamed by politicians to further their agenda.
Those "unemployment" numbers don't count the vast majority of people who aren't working. It's a scam number. But the labor participation rate - the % of the population actually working - is climbing off a long, very low trench.
Regardless, it doesn't matter if "unemployment in America" is good, these are people personally affected by it. Telling them "but its fine on average in America" doesn't help much. But, of course, most candidates weren't even saying that much, just dismissing people out of hand.
Same deal with neighborhood violence: all politics is local.
C'mon now. HRC was a terrible candidate, but against Trump? She was Churchill. I honestly can't believe the later was a viable option for half the country.
Half the country is very concerned with job loss due to immigration (and for some, increased crime in their neighborhoods). Most candidates responded to these concerns - the hot-button single issue for a huge swath of voters - with "shut up, you racist". Trump didn't. Why is it in any way surprising he had a strong base?
Only Trump and Cruz even presented an immigration plan of any kind. It was obviously going to be one of those two who won the GOP primary, but I'm still surprised that it was Trump. I think credibility of anyone who works in DC is just that damn low now with the American working class. So low they took "crazy" just to get "outsider".
Syntax Error: Invalid Left-hand side in assignment (os() = win10)
Not an error, that's them sneaking in the forced upgrade.
I think you're trying for some sort of private narrow definition,but, sorry, can't guess what it is.
Innovation is what engineers do when they create real products that reach many people. Ideas are easy, and an idea that no one turns into a product is worthless.
We cannot "sample" time.
We cannot "stop" time.
We cannot evaluate the opposite of time, or "not-time".
We cannot directly "measure" time.
We cannot directly "see" time.
If we cannot evaluate these things, does time exist?
You only think this because you have been educated stupid.
4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation.
Your dirty lying teachers use only the midnight to midnight
1 day (ignoring 3 other days) Time to not foul (already wrong)
bible time. Lie that corrupts earth you educated stupid fools.
Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24 Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong.
Einstein Was ONEist Brain. Try My Belly-Button Logic.
No God Knows About 4 Days,
It Is Evil To Ignore 4 Days, Does Your Teacher Know ?
Sigh - we miss you Gene Ray - Time Cube forever!
Netflix's concept is not "innovative" from a startup perspective.
So ... they don't defraud VCs out of their money?
I don't see how that matters to the usability of its web client. Heck, it's the back-end technical mediocrity of Microsoft that makes me unworried about their own ability to gather demographic information on me and use it for evil.
No "innovation in distribution" was Netflix's claim, which clearly isn't true. As a viewer, since I never see movies in the first couple weeks of a run, digital was a huge jump in quality for me. But given the nearly empty theater around me when I go, clearly I'm in the minority as my habits here.
Here's a hint about innovation: If you're saying "more" then you haven't discovered any.
That's certainly not true. Doing something as a one-off, or in a way that it only works in very limited applications is different from figuring out how to make it mainstream.