Actually, the balance of convenience would also shift towards bundled services, where you get whatever is on multiple streaming services for one bulk fee and via a single convenient access point.
Kind of like, oh... I don't know....cable.
Piracy would remain as an option for many, but because it cannot be safely practiced openly without the potential for litigation, it would not be any worse than what we've already seen.
It's not so much that they don't want you working for a competitor as much as that working for a competitor may offer a distinct advantage for that competitor to directly deprive your former company of revenue if you should use knowledge that you specifically obtained with them, such as knowledge of the former company's client database, for instance, confidential information, or trade secrets.
The filter built into a DSLR would block light of that wavelength. The reason I had it removed for taking astrophotos, to get maximum red transmission.
One is compelled to wonder why one would use a camera that has been custom modified to be sensitive to frequencies that are needed for astrological observation to take pictures of passing automobiles.
They can't apply for unemployment benefits while they are still employed, even if they are not being paid.
They can quit, but of course they might still be looking for work by the time the government shutdown ends, and there's no assurance they'd be able to get their old job back.
If you work in private industry, you can be a victim of a mass-layoff, and you never know its coming, so you should have emergency $$$ savings to prepare for that possibility, just as you should if you work for government - in case of political issues causing funding shortfall come the end of the fiscal year.
Emergency savings to prepare for the possibility of being out of work has its limits, and generally still depends on being able to collect EI while you look for other work.
But people are still employees of the government can't collect EI because they are, in fact, still technically employed. They can quit, but when the government reopens, they probably won't be able to get their old job back.
The entirely standard definition of AI is "Artificial Intelligence". This definition doesn't necessarily mean as much as it should to many people only because the definition of what constitutes "intelligence" may be fuzzy.
But simply put, if something has intelligence, and that intelligence is not naturally caused, then it is AI, by definition.
Cant it give you back the metabolism and energy you had when you were in your 20's or 30's?
Because otherwise, it's just another makeup scam... making people think that just by very superficially *looking* younger, you could somehow supposedly feel any younger than you actually are, or enjoy the kind of life you had when you were younger.
Because that is what would be important in the fight against aging... not purely exterior shit like age spots or what have you.
And at least with copyright, you may be able to make a fair use claim when you make a copy that is strictly for personal use... with patents, no fair use exemption exists.
I would suggest that there should be no need for a governing authority... just an augmentation to the protocol for completing a call.
Right now a caller sends call display info, that can remain... what can happen at the recipients end is that the destination makes a sort of "half-call" back to the calling number, asking that number if it really called the destination. If there is no response, then the call display number can be considered unverified, but if the sending number affirms that yes, it really is calling that number, then the number can be considered verified. Everything else stays the same.
All numbers would therefore be unverified until a response is received, which should not take any longer to do than completing a connection to make a phone call (so perhaps one or two ring cycles). If a caller transmits a fake number, then your end will get no response, whether the number they transmit is a real number somewhere or not, because the number as it would be reached by your end isn't actually trying to call you, and your call display unit could show that it is unverified.
That sucks if you are doing something that requires you be ready to accept calls from people you don't personally know, such as during a job hunt, where you don't necessarily know the exact number that a person who may call you for an interview will show up as.
It's less about resisting change and more about resisting stupid.
The problem with systemd is that its design is wholly antithetical to the Unix philosophy. It is nothing less than a tragedy for Linux that something like it has become so tightly integrated into as many distros as it has.
Very interesting point. If the courts say that these are official government pages and that politicians can't block people from accessing them, I don't see why Facebook can block them.
I would say, in that case, that Facebook needs to alter its terms of service, and advise all members that any pages or comments that are hosted by facebook and are of a political nature for which facebook cannot lawfully prohibit access to any individuals because of freedom of speech laws are themselves a violation of facebook's own terms of service, and subject to removal by facebook at the earliest opportunity. Give users 8 week's notice, and then do a purge.
1) That wouldn't require any congressional approval, because US laws don't govern what other nations may or may not do, any more than foreign laws govern what the US does.
2) Then that would be a matter of ratifying the trade agreement... except that's not what the government shutdown is about. It's about money for the border wall, which as I said before, Trump should not need any approval for if Mexico were *actually* paying for it.
There only possible thing to conclude about this shutdown is that Trump is actually having difficulty in getting American taxpayers to pay for the wall.
And as for this improved deal meaning that Mexico is effectively paying for the wall, while it does stand to greatly benefit American businesses over NAFTA, and this in turn could benefit the economy, it does not particularly benefit American taxpayers in any monetary sense because the businesses are not likely to lower their own profit margins for Americans just so their American customers can effectively see any return. There is no reality in which the funding for this border wall is not coming out of US taxpayers' pockets.
Even worse, this whole sustained government shutdown makes no sense.... why does Trump need approval for funding for the wall in the first place if Mexico was going to pay for it? Either the funds are effectively there because of this "fabulous new trade deal with Mexico" as he puts it, or else Americans are paying for it. Which is it?
One way around that is to not permit voice commands to buy anything directly, but only add to the Amazon cart. The response from Alexa would then be: "Sure! The item has been added to your Amazon cart. Its price is . You may confirm this transaction by logging into your Amazon account and completing the purchase".
Well, I did a little more research... turns out I was wrong... sort of.
I was right in that the original post was not grammatically correct, but I was not exactrly right about the reason. "Depreciated" can indeed be an adjective... however, it cannot be used as an adjective followed by a conjugation of "to be".
The applicable general rule governing the conversion of a past participle to an adjective is that it cannot be done on intransitive verbs. Where you come across exceptions to this is when a verb can be used intransitively and transitively (such as depreciate).
In such cases, the past participle form converted directly to an adjective must directly modify the applicable noun, and cannot be associated with it by a linking verb such as "to be". Otherwise, the past participle form needs to be combined with a conjugation of "to have" (and is not an adjective at all). It would be valid to refer to the "depreciated cards", for instance. It is not, however, valid to say that the "cards are depreciated".
I also said that "depreciated" is *NOT* an example of such a verb. The ultimate reason for this has to do with how the verb behaves when it is used intransitively.
The weight of even the lightest (and cheaply made) vinyl records are about 80 to 90 grams, and more typically closer to about 150grams., while an audio cassette is only about 40 grams.
The *only* advantage that cassettes *ever* had over vinyl is that they were more portable... but you took a very discernible loss in quality as a price for that convenience.
Today, you can store countless songs on a portable music player no larger than a single cassette, and at *VASTLY* higher quality than cassettes themselves are capable of. Vinyl, at least, has a redeeming characteristic over digital storage in that it is at least pure analog, and perhaps for some people, it might carry that appeal. Certainly there is no significant lack of quality in vinyl, at least not until the needle has worn the record down through very extensive repeated playing. But cassettes, while also analog, are so far inferior in quality to even today's lossy mp3 sound storage, that there is no reason I can imagine that people today would actually still prefer them.
In English, many past and present participles of verbs can be used as adjectives.
Several of the examples on the page mentioned given illustrate this usage.
Depreciated, while a past participle, is not an example of such a verb. To say that "X is depreciated" is about as gramatically correct as saying as saying "X is slept" instead of "X is sleepy" or "Y is died" instead of "Y is dead".
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the balance of convenience would also shift towards bundled services, where you get whatever is on multiple streaming services for one bulk fee and via a single convenient access point.
Kind of like, oh... I don't know....cable.
Piracy would remain as an option for many, but because it cannot be safely practiced openly without the potential for litigation, it would not be any worse than what we've already seen.
It's not so much that they don't want you working for a competitor as much as that working for a competitor may offer a distinct advantage for that competitor to directly deprive your former company of revenue if you should use knowledge that you specifically obtained with them, such as knowledge of the former company's client database, for instance, confidential information, or trade secrets.
One is compelled to wonder why one would use a camera that has been custom modified to be sensitive to frequencies that are needed for astrological observation to take pictures of passing automobiles.
Or you may be in an area that doesn't even have cellular service... happens to me regularly when I'm on vacation, for several days at a time.
How do they get you to immediately terminate a vacation if you are not in the country? What if you are not reachable?
They can't apply for unemployment benefits while they are still employed, even if they are not being paid.
They can quit, but of course they might still be looking for work by the time the government shutdown ends, and there's no assurance they'd be able to get their old job back.
Emergency savings to prepare for the possibility of being out of work has its limits, and generally still depends on being able to collect EI while you look for other work.
But people are still employees of the government can't collect EI because they are, in fact, still technically employed. They can quit, but when the government reopens, they probably won't be able to get their old job back.
The entirely standard definition of AI is "Artificial Intelligence". This definition doesn't necessarily mean as much as it should to many people only because the definition of what constitutes "intelligence" may be fuzzy.
But simply put, if something has intelligence, and that intelligence is not naturally caused, then it is AI, by definition.
Cant it give you back the metabolism and energy you had when you were in your 20's or 30's?
Because otherwise, it's just another makeup scam... making people think that just by very superficially *looking* younger, you could somehow supposedly feel any younger than you actually are, or enjoy the kind of life you had when you were younger.
Because that is what would be important in the fight against aging... not purely exterior shit like age spots or what have you.
What I'm upset about is that it systemd runs counter to the Unix Philosophy, which is somewhat more widespread than my insignificant opinion.
It's called copyright.
And at least with copyright, you may be able to make a fair use claim when you make a copy that is strictly for personal use... with patents, no fair use exemption exists.
I would suggest that there should be no need for a governing authority... just an augmentation to the protocol for completing a call.
Right now a caller sends call display info, that can remain... what can happen at the recipients end is that the destination makes a sort of "half-call" back to the calling number, asking that number if it really called the destination. If there is no response, then the call display number can be considered unverified, but if the sending number affirms that yes, it really is calling that number, then the number can be considered verified. Everything else stays the same.
All numbers would therefore be unverified until a response is received, which should not take any longer to do than completing a connection to make a phone call (so perhaps one or two ring cycles). If a caller transmits a fake number, then your end will get no response, whether the number they transmit is a real number somewhere or not, because the number as it would be reached by your end isn't actually trying to call you, and your call display unit could show that it is unverified.
That sucks if you are doing something that requires you be ready to accept calls from people you don't personally know, such as during a job hunt, where you don't necessarily know the exact number that a person who may call you for an interview will show up as.
Sure... and guess what?
It's not.
It's less about resisting change and more about resisting stupid.
The problem with systemd is that its design is wholly antithetical to the Unix philosophy. It is nothing less than a tragedy for Linux that something like it has become so tightly integrated into as many distros as it has.
The only reason we have to conclude that it may not be natural is that we don't really have a concrete natural explanation for it yet.
I imagine that the safe money is still on it being natural, however.
I would say, in that case, that Facebook needs to alter its terms of service, and advise all members that any pages or comments that are hosted by facebook and are of a political nature for which facebook cannot lawfully prohibit access to any individuals because of freedom of speech laws are themselves a violation of facebook's own terms of service, and subject to removal by facebook at the earliest opportunity. Give users 8 week's notice, and then do a purge.
1) That wouldn't require any congressional approval, because US laws don't govern what other nations may or may not do, any more than foreign laws govern what the US does.
2) Then that would be a matter of ratifying the trade agreement... except that's not what the government shutdown is about. It's about money for the border wall, which as I said before, Trump should not need any approval for if Mexico were *actually* paying for it.
There only possible thing to conclude about this shutdown is that Trump is actually having difficulty in getting American taxpayers to pay for the wall.
And as for this improved deal meaning that Mexico is effectively paying for the wall, while it does stand to greatly benefit American businesses over NAFTA, and this in turn could benefit the economy, it does not particularly benefit American taxpayers in any monetary sense because the businesses are not likely to lower their own profit margins for Americans just so their American customers can effectively see any return. There is no reality in which the funding for this border wall is not coming out of US taxpayers' pockets.
Even worse, this whole sustained government shutdown makes no sense.... why does Trump need approval for funding for the wall in the first place if Mexico was going to pay for it? Either the funds are effectively there because of this "fabulous new trade deal with Mexico" as he puts it, or else Americans are paying for it. Which is it?
One way around that is to not permit voice commands to buy anything directly, but only add to the Amazon cart. The response from Alexa would then be: "Sure! The item has been added to your Amazon cart. Its price is . You may confirm this transaction by logging into your Amazon account and completing the purchase".
Well, I did a little more research... turns out I was wrong... sort of. I was right in that the original post was not grammatically correct, but I was not exactrly right about the reason. "Depreciated" can indeed be an adjective... however, it cannot be used as an adjective followed by a conjugation of "to be".
The applicable general rule governing the conversion of a past participle to an adjective is that it cannot be done on intransitive verbs. Where you come across exceptions to this is when a verb can be used intransitively and transitively (such as depreciate).
In such cases, the past participle form converted directly to an adjective must directly modify the applicable noun, and cannot be associated with it by a linking verb such as "to be". Otherwise, the past participle form needs to be combined with a conjugation of "to have" (and is not an adjective at all). It would be valid to refer to the "depreciated cards", for instance. It is not, however, valid to say that the "cards are depreciated".
And hey. I just learned something.
I also said that "depreciated" is *NOT* an example of such a verb. The ultimate reason for this has to do with how the verb behaves when it is used intransitively.
Absolutely.
The weight of even the lightest (and cheaply made) vinyl records are about 80 to 90 grams, and more typically closer to about 150grams., while an audio cassette is only about 40 grams.
So yes, definitely more portable.
The *only* advantage that cassettes *ever* had over vinyl is that they were more portable... but you took a very discernible loss in quality as a price for that convenience.
Today, you can store countless songs on a portable music player no larger than a single cassette, and at *VASTLY* higher quality than cassettes themselves are capable of. Vinyl, at least, has a redeeming characteristic over digital storage in that it is at least pure analog, and perhaps for some people, it might carry that appeal. Certainly there is no significant lack of quality in vinyl, at least not until the needle has worn the record down through very extensive repeated playing. But cassettes, while also analog, are so far inferior in quality to even today's lossy mp3 sound storage, that there is no reason I can imagine that people today would actually still prefer them.
Several of the examples on the page mentioned given illustrate this usage.
Depreciated, while a past participle, is not an example of such a verb. To say that "X is depreciated" is about as gramatically correct as saying as saying "X is slept" instead of "X is sleepy" or "Y is died" instead of "Y is dead".