Rich could be defined as $200k, and they would still be rich.
I don't see what your point is, because the minimum definition does not affect the maximum.
Their respective boards of directors are not trying to pay them for a basic high quality life. They are paying them the equivalent of gigabit fiber. That's still broadband. If we change the definition to be $200k or $100k or $400k, there's still fiber, and there's still faster.
Do you measure speeds to Google only from houses in MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA? Speeds to Netflix from LOS GATOS, CA?
Connecting every point to every other point in Latvia is an easier problem than connecting the tips of Maine, Florida, Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Go on, tell me that Alaska and Hawaii are trivial, or how they aren't in the US, or how they shouldn't factor in to average speeds. Or tell me about how you can get a huge packet round trip from California to Hawaii or Alaska in under X milliseconds. I'm talking about every small town wired to every other one. That's nowhere near the same solution as Latvia.
Population density is not a great argument. But the solution doesn't just scale because the Alaska to Orlando problem is not just Latvia times a scaling factor.
Investors have filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that the companyâ(TM)s various anti-poaching agreements ultimately hurt the companyâ(TM)s stock. The class action suit was filed last week by Apple shareholder R. Andre Klein and it alleges that the anti-poaching agreements then-CEO Steve Jobs put in place with Google, Intel and other companies were a breach of Appleâ(TM)s responsibility to Shareholders. Klein says the agreements were misleading to investors and ultimately damaged the value of the company.
There is no legal obligation to focus on profits. But there is a legal penalty for losing a shareholder lawsuit. So what happens is, a company announces some new method, described vaguely, for increasing future profits. Shareholders buy. stock prices barely move, or drop because revenue doesn't increase as announced. Now it's fraud.
As a company, traded or not, for the longevity of the company, they have to be focused on profits. If they also give a forward looking statement, even though disclaimers follow, the general idea is that they announced higher future profits, and must deliver. No penalties if they don't, unless a shareholder suit comes along.
How is it unfair? The state gets additional jobs, higher tax revenues (if applicable), and most likely an economic boost from people spending money.
In several financial and political philosophies, companies provide a net benefit and therefore should pay zero taxes. Therefore, it is your position that is unfair.
If a state imposed higher than average taxes, and never negotiated, it would lose employment. If it gave in once, there would be a race to the bottom, which logically is zero taxes. Because business do not change headquarters frequently, this is exactly what is happening, just very slowly.
On a National level, companies can't choose where they are located. But they can choose to declare profits where it is less expensive. So they keep profits offshore instead of bringing home the bacon.
If you owned a business that was subject to both home taxes and away taxes, would that sound fair? If you have a 10% tax rate, but the guys in the parking lot next to you have a 5% rate, would that be fair?
What is fair? You need to define words before you use them. I suppose I should ask, fair to whom? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
The problem we have in the US is that firms are given a great deal of leeway to insure that they can charge as high as price as the market will bear,
and as a logical consequence,
but labor is severely restricted in doing the same.
The second is a given, if you understand this:
Maximizing profit is an aspect of capitalism Minimizing cost is also an aspect of capitalism
Minimizing opportunity for your labor to make itself more profitable is a logical outcome of capitalism. Age and minimum wage laws are anti-capitalistic distortions. The "public justice" GP refers to.
If I were to paraphrase your post, it would be: "Basically yes, also I don't understand capitalism."
If you had a grasp on capitalism, you would say, "... because capitalism, and that's bad". That's where the US economy is - capitalism. And before you say the US is not capitalism, that's because the capitalists have fixed the loopholes that don't favor them, excluding the distortions introduced by public justice.
Bottom line, public justice is needed. Also, understanding where the problem comes from is key to fighting the problem. And any analogy is going to miss important details, so they really are all bad. If you think one aspect is more important, you will think another analogy is more important. Otherwise, maybe not.
For the record, so some retard doesn't make a retard of him or her self, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. Just your way of explaining it. Because if you're going to convince people who don't agree with you, good communication helps.
Ignoring all of that, giving kids a group they can belong to in school means they are less likely to seek one outside of school.
The at-risk kids will have a better chance at belonging with more opportunities.
That makes sense, and doesnt require people to buy in to the benefits of particular programs. Well known does not mean widely accepted, or we would not be having this conversation.
More than more likely response: Figure out how to get us compliant so our sales guys can use that ASAP.
Also, don't delay our shipment because those schmucks paid for non-compliant widgets. Delays for no revenue or no value add in the next rounds of sales hurt my bottom line.
It's like you ascribe the next-to-worst attributes to a CEO but don't go all the way and see it realistically the way a CEO would.
"Who cares" has to be the most useless argument on this page.
The businesses with the most money will obviously attempt to get certification for a bullet point. The people who make decisions based on bullet points care. The people at those companies who have to implement those bullet points care.
More importantly, the customers who have to spend more money care. If it is spread across enough customers that the financial impact is negligible, the customers don't care and the business doesn't care. It all works out okay and the answer is: those who care, care, and those who don't, don't. The answer is that the people who care will care. If you don't, it's out of ignorance.
1) Not taught in CS 2) Barely taught in CS 3) Not taught in CS 4) Not taught in CS 5) Maths are often required, but poorly understood, and as you said not required
So CS will give you the fundamentals, as you claim. Are the fundamentals enough? By your post, you assert yes.
Also, by your own post you are an idiot, since waterfall development was described by Royce only as an example of something to avoid. Trick question? Most coders don't get to choose, so the joke's on you.
"Solid technical professional" really needs description. You may have a different experience from, like, 6 million other people on the planet.
And we are left with "real experience", which many people can gain through open source collaboration or other avenues.
A personal portfolio goes a long way for me, regardless of a CS degree. Especially if the examples are ground-up implementations instead of adhering to a stylistic convention imposed on a particular project. It demonstrates that "real experience" you say is helpful. And if student jobs, interning, and co-op provide that, then I cast doubt on your assertion that CS is in any way important.
If you would have never landed your job without co-op, are you really defending pure CS education? Or is there a personal experience to this that makes you favor one side or the other? What if you had the co-op opportunities without the CS education? What if you had the CS without the co-op?
I'm pretty sure you are, if you are being honest, clearly on one side or the other, and are better able to articulate your position now.
"An employer" is vague. as is your generalization. Some employers need a warm body to fill a position, and need that body to have the necessary pedigree to justify spending money. Other employers need someone who is competent and worth their salary.
You will find these graduated, for example having a Programmer I through Programmer IV job title.
Would you hire someone with a CS degree just out of university for the Programmer IV position? If you said anything other than "Yes, instantaneously" then you undercut your own point.
And if you're not smart enough to say how colleges could be improved, and you only got the basics and learned the rest while getting paid, your argument just shite its pants and you'll find it in the toilets wishing it could be home right now.
I spent time in fourth level undergraduate classes with some of the most idiotic classmates you can imagine. Some of them graduated.
If nothing else, the way colleges could be improved is to offer a beginner's degree and an advanced degree. Not "Master" advanced, rather just a way to distinguish "came to class and didn't fail most tests" with "was an avid student and learned a crap ton."
That differentiates the barely educated from the truly educated. By the end of second year, the university can have a private meeting with each student and say you are going into basic or advanced track, and here's why. This will never happen, but I can at least list a way to improve on the current system.
If the first paragraph is a wall of text, why would I think the functions/methods would be smaller?
If the whole post looks like it was dictated but not edited, why would I expect any thing more than type-and-commit?
Here is the complete post to which GP replied:
Let me rephrase that question: "does knowing how to do a job outweigh knowing abstract theory about that job?" I think the answer there is pretty obvious: *of course* coders who actually know what they are doing are more valuable to an employer than some kid with a CS degree and no idea how to actually do a programmer's job.
Here's the reply in question, paraphrased:
Self-taught people, in my experience, have missed important concepts. Most of the ones I can list have to do with things most coders won't encounter. I have rarely met people who know everything they should, because either the courses I think are necessary really don't teach what they should, or most people are stupid. Either way, a CS degree won't help. And it seems like I agree with OP, because the 2 people in 15 years are those "of course" people. Also, things I don't know anything about, and lots of homophone type spelling mistakes.
And here's the part I really like.
On a selfish note, I will never, ever have to compete for a job with someone that does not have a bachelors degree. So this is good for me and it's not good for our country but hey you're going to do what you want to do dummy.
First, we were talking about the importance of a CS degree vs. not a CS degree. AC definitely has to fight for a job with people who have a degree in something other than CS, making that completely irrelevant. Stream of consciousness poster has forgotten the point, making most of this gibberish irrelevant. Defend irrelevant points if you want - oh wait, you did, so ignore that.
More importantly, if it's not good for the country, then learning to code outweighs getting a CS degree. That defeats whatever point he/she might have had.
There is no logic, and code requires logic. There is no attention to detail, and code requires attention to detail. Communication skills in code are not obvious, but if you cannot communicate your intent, either by code or comments, then you have failed to communicate the importance of your implementation, or other details.
There is nothing good about the post you are defending, in the context in which I found it. That you defended it, seemingly without truly considering your defense, makes me question your competence. Note, I am not personally attacking you, merely evaluating your response on its merits. And it has none.
Considering the post is about design and usability, being closed source is not what the GP was looking for in terms of an answer.
So yes, we're going to need more than that. Specifically, Linux seems to be moving more towards the design of Windows, at least according to this retarded article. Is that bad, and if so explain yourself.
I buy a phone, and I'm an idiot. Specifically, I'm a very attractive hollywood star/let.
I want to share my tits with some person I'm dating. How do I know anything about what you have said? I want my tit pics to go across the water, and only to the person that I sent them to, or allowed to see them.
Talk to me like I'm an idiot, because by the lists I am an idiot. I'm a very ignorant fool, and I don't understand how the pictures I took, for a specific person, are now appearing for every person on the planet to see.
What did I do wrong? I took pictures of my vagina. That's on my phone. I texted them to you, and you are on my carrier, which I would expect is private. If you support the non-pprivacy of anything I upload to my phone (which is not an upload), then you are a contrarian and deserve to die.
I text to a private device, or upload to a private account. How do I share something "by default" that people, right now, are jerking off to, by reports, "repeatedly and thoroughly"? I bought a phone, I texted it to someone I trust, and now my "junk" is everywhere.
I was prompted for an Apple Id, I guess, but did it tell me that my vagina would be on the internet?
Did I upload something to the cloud? Because I don't know what a cloud is. I wanted to prove to this really cute and awesome guy that I missed him and wanted him to come back after shooting his movie or show or whatever, I'm not being specific.
Was it in a ToS agreement that I upload everything to everyone ever? If not, your description of default whatever holds no water. I don't know the defaults. I don't know what I have to turn on or off to enable or disable defaults. I want pictures of my pussy on my pohone, and wherever I send them. That's it.
Go ahead, and be technically superior. I'm going to need a stupid-user-level explanation of what I missed because I'm dumb.
But once spending is enabled, is it somehow bad to provide convenience services that cost very little? Especially if the person is happy to pay for them?
Because otherwise your post is irrelevant. Posting something true in a limited context but not relevant where it is posted is not insightful.
You trusted the summary instead of reading the article. It's relatively brief, and it took me less than 10 seconds to roughly grasp the confusion.
Node.js is a very tiny part of the whole explanation.
Fuck it, you're not going to click so here's the relevant bits. I'm assuming Node.js injects script into the pages it creates, meaning those developers don't need script libraries (other than Node.js)
The emergence of Node.JS has allowed JavaScript to be used on the server side, opening the door to creating isomorphic single page applications. New package managers (npm, bower) have spurred the rise of an ecosystem of 3rd party, open source, single-purpose tools that complement each other, embracing the UNIX philosophy and enabling very complex development use cases. New build tools (Grunt and its ecosystem of plugins, Broccoli, Gulp) have made it easier to assemble those tiny modules into large, cohesive applications. New application frameworks (Backbone, React, Ember, Polymer, Angular, etc.) have helped architect web applications in a more scalable and maintainable way. New testing tools (Mocha, Casper, Karma, etc.) have lowered the barrier of entry to building a solid continuous delivery pipeline. Standard bodies (W3C, Ecma) are standardizing what the large JavaScript frameworks have brought to the table over the years, making them available natively to a larger number of devices. Finally, browser vendors are now committed to making continuous improvements to their web browsers while aligning more closely with standards. With so called âoeevergreen web browsersâ, which are making it easier for users to run the latest stable version of a web browser, we can expect a significant reduction in the amount of variance across user agents.
You cited counter examples, but failed to demonstrate how frequent these are, or how important they are compared to the topics that this administration has been forthcoming on.
I can explain all day why WWII was a poor decision, with great statistics and all kinds of stuff, but without the kind of context that almost every adult on the planet has given some fraction of an education, it means nothing.
Support your rage with information, not 2 random examples. Or if you must, tell us how no administration in history has ever been so secret. Because wow, do I have some really nice pyramids you can have for a reasonable price!
Great, you get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you get to be the editor for every technical article ever.
Here's the catch.
Every journalist at every newspaper or website writes for a slightly different audience. Every story has to be tuned for that audience. You have to find a way to describe "hidden files" to every target audience. If you type what I typed above and ask, "was that so hard?" then you failed. Because for the bottom 50%, they have no idea what you are talking about.
The last paragraph is maybe relevant, but redundant. If you spent less time being retarded, maybe your comment would be the relevant one.
Allow me to paraphrase on your behalf: "HAHAHA, things I know that most of the world doesn't. So obvious, cretin. Allow me to care by pointing out how obvious it should be to everyone who is not me! There, I cared."
86 million smartphones means that 1000 million phones of any type is realistic? I don't get your logic at all.
So I read the link you provided, meaning I'm no longer ignorant unless you are intentionally hiding relevant information, but I still don't think this paints a picture of a billion users being realistic.
Comparing American and Indian markets doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does give a point of comparison.
And we have someone like by Em Adespoton above, suggesting that this phone will replace phone, TV, and computer, which makes it financially more reasonable. For that to happen, smartphone adoption has to go from 7% to 80% for your numbers to make sense.
How realistic is it that a population of 1.2 billion will go from 7% to 80% any time soon? If you have some market insight there, given that this seems expensive, I'd love to hear it. We all would.
Specifically, if you are saying that nearly a billion people have dumb phones, will the infrastructure that will be available in the next year or two support a billion users converting to smart phones? How about to the point of replacing phone, tv, and computer? How many people are spending this much money on technology already?
These are the types of things I'd want to know to make a judgement on how realistic this sounds.
If you are lying unconscious, no one is going to make a decision about whether it costs more to save your life.
Lots of people are aware of good samaritan laws, and will do anything to save you.
Lots of people are aware of the legal responsibility of SURVIVORS suing THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO SAVE THEM and FUCKING WINNING.
If you are unconscious, you will hope for some ignorant retard, which is most of the population, to come along and call someone who cares. Most likely 9-1-1. And they will disclose your location but not their identity. And that's okay.
Emergency, please help this poor fuck. I'm out. Is that what you wanted? Great, because their job is done.
Or did you want your health care delivered by untrained strangers? Stats on Heimlich and breathing help suggests that even trained CPR means a very small advantage.
Literally, people who call 911 anonymously and fuck off have as good a chance at saving you as the people who really try to save you. They might as well fuck it up.
Call an ambulance, sure. But you really lost the point.
The VICTIM has to pay the cost. If she does not have insurance, she either dies or wishes she had. Your hate is on the side of hospitals and medical billers and health insurance.
Not on the side of the people who will invariably call for help regardless of whether you're a foreigner. We love all people, because we can't tell the difference immediately. We hate them equally, for the same reasons.
This one did not involve any economist misunderstanding, other than the idea that someone watching a beheading video is going to donate to red cross, or really anything ever in their entire life.
Other than that, it's not really objectionable.
well, there is the bit about being posted by a douchetastically horrible thinker to a really self-indulgently retarded bunch of ass-tastic thinkers, I can't find a single fault.
Slashdot Mirror
Rich could be defined as $200k, and they would still be rich.
I don't see what your point is, because the minimum definition does not affect the maximum.
Their respective boards of directors are not trying to pay them for a basic high quality life. They are paying them the equivalent of gigabit fiber. That's still broadband. If we change the definition to be $200k or $100k or $400k, there's still fiber, and there's still faster.
Do you measure speeds to Google only from houses in MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA? Speeds to Netflix from LOS GATOS, CA?
Connecting every point to every other point in Latvia is an easier problem than connecting the tips of Maine, Florida, Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Go on, tell me that Alaska and Hawaii are trivial, or how they aren't in the US, or how they shouldn't factor in to average speeds. Or tell me about how you can get a huge packet round trip from California to Hawaii or Alaska in under X milliseconds. I'm talking about every small town wired to every other one. That's nowhere near the same solution as Latvia.
Population density is not a great argument. But the solution doesn't just scale because the Alaska to Orlando problem is not just Latvia times a scaling factor.
Money is not the only resource. Start again, please.
Because of things like this:
http://bgr.com/2014/08/15/appl...
There is no legal obligation to focus on profits. But there is a legal penalty for losing a shareholder lawsuit. So what happens is, a company announces some new method, described vaguely, for increasing future profits. Shareholders buy. stock prices barely move, or drop because revenue doesn't increase as announced. Now it's fraud.
As a company, traded or not, for the longevity of the company, they have to be focused on profits. If they also give a forward looking statement, even though disclaimers follow, the general idea is that they announced higher future profits, and must deliver. No penalties if they don't, unless a shareholder suit comes along.
How is it unfair? The state gets additional jobs, higher tax revenues (if applicable), and most likely an economic boost from people spending money.
In several financial and political philosophies, companies provide a net benefit and therefore should pay zero taxes. Therefore, it is your position that is unfair.
If a state imposed higher than average taxes, and never negotiated, it would lose employment. If it gave in once, there would be a race to the bottom, which logically is zero taxes. Because business do not change headquarters frequently, this is exactly what is happening, just very slowly.
On a National level, companies can't choose where they are located. But they can choose to declare profits where it is less expensive. So they keep profits offshore instead of bringing home the bacon.
If you owned a business that was subject to both home taxes and away taxes, would that sound fair? If you have a 10% tax rate, but the guys in the parking lot next to you have a 5% rate, would that be fair?
What is fair? You need to define words before you use them. I suppose I should ask, fair to whom? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
That's racist!
and as a logical consequence,
The second is a given, if you understand this:
Maximizing profit is an aspect of capitalism
Minimizing cost is also an aspect of capitalism
Minimizing opportunity for your labor to make itself more profitable is a logical outcome of capitalism. Age and minimum wage laws are anti-capitalistic distortions. The "public justice" GP refers to.
If I were to paraphrase your post, it would be: "Basically yes, also I don't understand capitalism."
If you had a grasp on capitalism, you would say, "... because capitalism, and that's bad". That's where the US economy is - capitalism. And before you say the US is not capitalism, that's because the capitalists have fixed the loopholes that don't favor them, excluding the distortions introduced by public justice.
Bottom line, public justice is needed. Also, understanding where the problem comes from is key to fighting the problem. And any analogy is going to miss important details, so they really are all bad. If you think one aspect is more important, you will think another analogy is more important. Otherwise, maybe not.
For the record, so some retard doesn't make a retard of him or her self, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. Just your way of explaining it. Because if you're going to convince people who don't agree with you, good communication helps.
Ignoring all of that, giving kids a group they can belong to in school means they are less likely to seek one outside of school.
The at-risk kids will have a better chance at belonging with more opportunities.
That makes sense, and doesnt require people to buy in to the benefits of particular programs. Well known does not mean widely accepted, or we would not be having this conversation.
How in the fuck is someone going to fix their site without the help of the guilty party?
Option 1: Delete all, start over
Option 2: Oracle fixes whatever went wrong in the other states
One option is really obvious, the other is expensive. We should all shit down Chris Kanaracus's neck for this.
More than more likely response: Figure out how to get us compliant so our sales guys can use that ASAP.
Also, don't delay our shipment because those schmucks paid for non-compliant widgets. Delays for no revenue or no value add in the next rounds of sales hurt my bottom line.
It's like you ascribe the next-to-worst attributes to a CEO but don't go all the way and see it realistically the way a CEO would.
"Who cares" has to be the most useless argument on this page.
The businesses with the most money will obviously attempt to get certification for a bullet point. The people who make decisions based on bullet points care. The people at those companies who have to implement those bullet points care.
More importantly, the customers who have to spend more money care. If it is spread across enough customers that the financial impact is negligible, the customers don't care and the business doesn't care. It all works out okay and the answer is: those who care, care, and those who don't, don't. The answer is that the people who care will care. If you don't, it's out of ignorance.
Is ISO 9001 incompatible with this?
Are you arguing for CS or against?
1) Not taught in CS
2) Barely taught in CS
3) Not taught in CS
4) Not taught in CS
5) Maths are often required, but poorly understood, and as you said not required
So CS will give you the fundamentals, as you claim. Are the fundamentals enough? By your post, you assert yes.
Also, by your own post you are an idiot, since waterfall development was described by Royce only as an example of something to avoid. Trick question? Most coders don't get to choose, so the joke's on you.
"Solid technical professional" really needs description. You may have a different experience from, like, 6 million other people on the planet.
And we are left with "real experience", which many people can gain through open source collaboration or other avenues.
A personal portfolio goes a long way for me, regardless of a CS degree. Especially if the examples are ground-up implementations instead of adhering to a stylistic convention imposed on a particular project. It demonstrates that "real experience" you say is helpful. And if student jobs, interning, and co-op provide that, then I cast doubt on your assertion that CS is in any way important.
If you would have never landed your job without co-op, are you really defending pure CS education? Or is there a personal experience to this that makes you favor one side or the other? What if you had the co-op opportunities without the CS education? What if you had the CS without the co-op?
I'm pretty sure you are, if you are being honest, clearly on one side or the other, and are better able to articulate your position now.
Given that the current curriculae attempt to teach basic algorithms and fundamentals, how are you going to fit this in?
If you provide more practice, does that mean more 3 hour labs with 1 hour credit? Or do you take away existing courses to make room?
This sounds like whining - I want to read about solutions.
"An employer" is vague. as is your generalization. Some employers need a warm body to fill a position, and need that body to have the necessary pedigree to justify spending money. Other employers need someone who is competent and worth their salary.
You will find these graduated, for example having a Programmer I through Programmer IV job title.
Would you hire someone with a CS degree just out of university for the Programmer IV position? If you said anything other than "Yes, instantaneously" then you undercut your own point.
And if you're not smart enough to say how colleges could be improved, and you only got the basics and learned the rest while getting paid, your argument just shite its pants and you'll find it in the toilets wishing it could be home right now.
I spent time in fourth level undergraduate classes with some of the most idiotic classmates you can imagine. Some of them graduated.
If nothing else, the way colleges could be improved is to offer a beginner's degree and an advanced degree. Not "Master" advanced, rather just a way to distinguish "came to class and didn't fail most tests" with "was an avid student and learned a crap ton."
That differentiates the barely educated from the truly educated. By the end of second year, the university can have a private meeting with each student and say you are going into basic or advanced track, and here's why. This will never happen, but I can at least list a way to improve on the current system.
If they are of no real value, why did GP comment?
If the first paragraph is a wall of text, why would I think the functions/methods would be smaller?
If the whole post looks like it was dictated but not edited, why would I expect any thing more than type-and-commit?
Here is the complete post to which GP replied:
Here's the reply in question, paraphrased:
And here's the part I really like.
On a selfish note, I will never, ever have to compete for a job with someone that does not have a bachelors degree. So this is good for me and it's not good for our country but hey you're going to do what you want to do dummy.
First, we were talking about the importance of a CS degree vs. not a CS degree. AC definitely has to fight for a job with people who have a degree in something other than CS, making that completely irrelevant. Stream of consciousness poster has forgotten the point, making most of this gibberish irrelevant. Defend irrelevant points if you want - oh wait, you did, so ignore that.
More importantly, if it's not good for the country, then learning to code outweighs getting a CS degree. That defeats whatever point he/she might have had.
There is no logic, and code requires logic. There is no attention to detail, and code requires attention to detail. Communication skills in code are not obvious, but if you cannot communicate your intent, either by code or comments, then you have failed to communicate the importance of your implementation, or other details.
There is nothing good about the post you are defending, in the context in which I found it. That you defended it, seemingly without truly considering your defense, makes me question your competence. Note, I am not personally attacking you, merely evaluating your response on its merits. And it has none.
Considering the post is about design and usability, being closed source is not what the GP was looking for in terms of an answer.
So yes, we're going to need more than that. Specifically, Linux seems to be moving more towards the design of Windows, at least according to this retarded article. Is that bad, and if so explain yourself.
Otherwise, you're just not helping here.
I buy a phone, and I'm an idiot. Specifically, I'm a very attractive hollywood star/let.
I want to share my tits with some person I'm dating. How do I know anything about what you have said? I want my tit pics to go across the water, and only to the person that I sent them to, or allowed to see them.
Talk to me like I'm an idiot, because by the lists I am an idiot. I'm a very ignorant fool, and I don't understand how the pictures I took, for a specific person, are now appearing for every person on the planet to see.
What did I do wrong? I took pictures of my vagina. That's on my phone. I texted them to you, and you are on my carrier, which I would expect is private. If you support the non-pprivacy of anything I upload to my phone (which is not an upload), then you are a contrarian and deserve to die.
I text to a private device, or upload to a private account. How do I share something "by default" that people, right now, are jerking off to, by reports, "repeatedly and thoroughly"? I bought a phone, I texted it to someone I trust, and now my "junk" is everywhere.
I was prompted for an Apple Id, I guess, but did it tell me that my vagina would be on the internet?
Did I upload something to the cloud? Because I don't know what a cloud is. I wanted to prove to this really cute and awesome guy that I missed him and wanted him to come back after shooting his movie or show or whatever, I'm not being specific.
Was it in a ToS agreement that I upload everything to everyone ever? If not, your description of default whatever holds no water. I don't know the defaults. I don't know what I have to turn on or off to enable or disable defaults. I want pictures of my pussy on my pohone, and wherever I send them. That's it.
Go ahead, and be technically superior. I'm going to need a stupid-user-level explanation of what I missed because I'm dumb.
But once spending is enabled, is it somehow bad to provide convenience services that cost very little? Especially if the person is happy to pay for them?
Because otherwise your post is irrelevant. Posting something true in a limited context but not relevant where it is posted is not insightful.
You trusted the summary instead of reading the article. It's relatively brief, and it took me less than 10 seconds to roughly grasp the confusion.
Node.js is a very tiny part of the whole explanation.
Fuck it, you're not going to click so here's the relevant bits. I'm assuming Node.js injects script into the pages it creates, meaning those developers don't need script libraries (other than Node.js)
</first post>
You cited counter examples, but failed to demonstrate how frequent these are, or how important they are compared to the topics that this administration has been forthcoming on.
I can explain all day why WWII was a poor decision, with great statistics and all kinds of stuff, but without the kind of context that almost every adult on the planet has given some fraction of an education, it means nothing.
Support your rage with information, not 2 random examples. Or if you must, tell us how no administration in history has ever been so secret. Because wow, do I have some really nice pyramids you can have for a reasonable price!
Right-click, Properties, select "hidden", and OK.
What, you thought that was general knowledge?
Great, you get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you get to be the editor for every technical article ever.
Here's the catch.
Every journalist at every newspaper or website writes for a slightly different audience. Every story has to be tuned for that audience. You have to find a way to describe "hidden files" to every target audience. If you type what I typed above and ask, "was that so hard?" then you failed. Because for the bottom 50%, they have no idea what you are talking about.
The last paragraph is maybe relevant, but redundant. If you spent less time being retarded, maybe your comment would be the relevant one.
Allow me to paraphrase on your behalf: "HAHAHA, things I know that most of the world doesn't. So obvious, cretin. Allow me to care by pointing out how obvious it should be to everyone who is not me! There, I cared."
86 million smartphones means that 1000 million phones of any type is realistic? I don't get your logic at all.
So I read the link you provided, meaning I'm no longer ignorant unless you are intentionally hiding relevant information, but I still don't think this paints a picture of a billion users being realistic.
Comparing American and Indian markets doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does give a point of comparison.
And we have someone like by Em Adespoton above, suggesting that this phone will replace phone, TV, and computer, which makes it financially more reasonable. For that to happen, smartphone adoption has to go from 7% to 80% for your numbers to make sense.
How realistic is it that a population of 1.2 billion will go from 7% to 80% any time soon? If you have some market insight there, given that this seems expensive, I'd love to hear it. We all would.
Specifically, if you are saying that nearly a billion people have dumb phones, will the infrastructure that will be available in the next year or two support a billion users converting to smart phones? How about to the point of replacing phone, tv, and computer? How many people are spending this much money on technology already?
These are the types of things I'd want to know to make a judgement on how realistic this sounds.
If you are lying unconscious, no one is going to make a decision about whether it costs more to save your life.
Lots of people are aware of good samaritan laws, and will do anything to save you.
Lots of people are aware of the legal responsibility of SURVIVORS suing THE PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO SAVE THEM and FUCKING WINNING.
If you are unconscious, you will hope for some ignorant retard, which is most of the population, to come along and call someone who cares. Most likely 9-1-1. And they will disclose your location but not their identity. And that's okay.
Emergency, please help this poor fuck. I'm out. Is that what you wanted? Great, because their job is done.
Or did you want your health care delivered by untrained strangers? Stats on Heimlich and breathing help suggests that even trained CPR means a very small advantage.
Literally, people who call 911 anonymously and fuck off have as good a chance at saving you as the people who really try to save you. They might as well fuck it up.
Call an ambulance, sure. But you really lost the point.
The VICTIM has to pay the cost. If she does not have insurance, she either dies or wishes she had. Your hate is on the side of hospitals and medical billers and health insurance.
Not on the side of the people who will invariably call for help regardless of whether you're a foreigner. We love all people, because we can't tell the difference immediately. We hate them equally, for the same reasons.
This one did not involve any economist misunderstanding, other than the idea that someone watching a beheading video is going to donate to red cross, or really anything ever in their entire life.
Other than that, it's not really objectionable.
well, there is the bit about being posted by a douchetastically horrible thinker to a really self-indulgently retarded bunch of ass-tastic thinkers, I can't find a single fault.