If you don't care that Trump is president, that's your prerogative.
But if you do care, then you might have some curiosity about why Clinton lost and learning how to avoid Trump's re-election. That includes facing unpleasant truths about how poor a candidate Clinton really was.
I do see how this contract is different, but Microsoft's self-serving business practises have held back the progress of human civilization by two decades. I don't feel anything connected with Microsoft - certainly not their employees - have any credibility on matters relating to ethics.
As much as there is clearly a higher level of sophistication in today's websites, which is arguably better in many ways, I'm struck by how little improvement there has been in the space of two decades.
I get the feeling HTML was co-opted and distorted way beyond it's initial scope without enough people pausing to ask whether something better should be developed to replace it rather than just making more and more elaborate incarnations of what in procedural code we would call spaghetti code.
And that's even before considering the predatory advertising and privacy issues.
Emoji can substitute for complex ideas in a concise form. Some words do that.
Emoji can express a simple idea and also convey emotion. The right word can do that.
Emoji can express intentional ambiguity. Words also.
I don't doubt that there's more brevity, emotion, ambiguity and/or context dependence with emojis, which is why they are used instead of words some of the time, but the problem in terms of evidence admissible in court isn't new.
What's different is that all emoji are new, and there isn't the same kind of consensus about their meaning and use.
Because the extraordinary scope of the conspiracy makes knowing the "truth" that much more of an achievement, and fighting the "misinformation" that much more noble.
Note the conspiracy is constructed to suit their "belief", not to have a constructive purpose of its own.
But also not all textbooks are equal. There are excellent textbooks, but I can't say I've come across them frequently. Many textbooks exist merely to slightly re-phrase something from an earlier textbook. Some might not work well with a particular student's learning style. And some textbooks are simply poor quality and do more to obstruct learning than facilitate it.
There's no reason to limit the understanding of what constitutes a textbook. E-books, YouTube videos, and commercial instructional videos are all valid learning resources. A wealthy philanthropist could easily hire experts to write stable Wikibooks-style textbooks in the public domain to cover, perhaps not all, but quite a lot, of high school and university level curricula. Even considering traditional paper books, a textbook should be considered one tool among many for a student to learn material. Except for the newest, latest developments in a field, a university library will have multiple versions of roughly equivalent textbooks, and seeing explanations from slightly different perspectives can be enormously valuable.
A phenomenon that I have noticed, both in software and textbooks, is that once a product is more or less optimal, the desire to create new versions requires creating something necessarily sub-optimal. I once went through my university library for a book on a certain topic and I had to find a book with the original discoverer's insight from 1920s, because every book since then had to phrase the subject matter differently and, therefore, poorly. Although non-obvious, it was so simple that there really was only one way to explain it.
Consider calculus. First-year university calculus hasn't changed in 250 years. Second-year university calculus hasn't changed in 100 years. New textbooks aren't being manufactured because all those previous authors failed in their goal.
Oracle has a whole business model of making good software, charging for an upgrade that is deliberately broken, then charging to fix the broken version, instead of simply continuing to support software that already works.
The idea was, if you are exposed to violence, or bigotry, or sexism, or other anti-social behaviors through media, you were more likely to adopt those behaviors.
Some of the most extreme intolerance seems to originate with people who grew up so sheltered from bigotry that they cannot distinguish actual prejudice from honest disagreement.
You misunderstand, it's not merely telling a story, it's predicting automotive technology 25 years into the future! And getting from Seattle to China is telling us that the flying cars will finally be here!
Generally insurance is risk management with the statistical expectation of breaking even. Gambling is taking risk where the statistical expectation is a loss.
No, that absolutely is not what insurance is about.
The word 'insurance' gets misused quite a bit. A scheme that is universal and compulsory would resemble insurance in a lot of ways but fundamentally not be the same thing.
Interestingly, people on all sides seem to prefer misusing terminology to having an honest dialogue.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all. But a few.
If you don't care that Trump is president, that's your prerogative.
But if you do care, then you might have some curiosity about why Clinton lost and learning how to avoid Trump's re-election. That includes facing unpleasant truths about how poor a candidate Clinton really was.
Does he even understand what that word means?
Yes.
He means something different though.
I do see how this contract is different, but Microsoft's self-serving business practises have held back the progress of human civilization by two decades. I don't feel anything connected with Microsoft - certainly not their employees - have any credibility on matters relating to ethics.
No, "why" can be cause, not necessarily intent.
The US has squandered its credibility. I can't say that Huawei inspires me with trust, but US accusations mean nothing.
As much as there is clearly a higher level of sophistication in today's websites, which is arguably better in many ways, I'm struck by how little improvement there has been in the space of two decades.
I get the feeling HTML was co-opted and distorted way beyond it's initial scope without enough people pausing to ask whether something better should be developed to replace it rather than just making more and more elaborate incarnations of what in procedural code we would call spaghetti code.
And that's even before considering the predatory advertising and privacy issues.
Nouveau York is ungrammatical. It's Nouvel-York.
If light sabers motivate people, more power
I see what you did.
Except the Vatican, monarchist institutions in Europe are all democratic. Most socialist institutions also.
How many people genuinely believe
I don't necessarily mean people who admit to it.
Emoji can substitute for complex ideas in a concise form. Some words do that.
Emoji can express a simple idea and also convey emotion. The right word can do that.
Emoji can express intentional ambiguity. Words also.
I don't doubt that there's more brevity, emotion, ambiguity and/or context dependence with emojis, which is why they are used instead of words some of the time, but the problem in terms of evidence admissible in court isn't new.
What's different is that all emoji are new, and there isn't the same kind of consensus about their meaning and use.
Because the extraordinary scope of the conspiracy makes knowing the "truth" that much more of an achievement, and fighting the "misinformation" that much more noble.
Note the conspiracy is constructed to suit their "belief", not to have a constructive purpose of its own.
How many people genuinely believe God is a human-like decision maker, rather than merely a metaphor for their innate moral system?
The prime minister would count as a "state actor", but I'm not so sure about the "sophisticated" part.
This is Goldman Sachs. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't one of their interview questions in the hiring process.
He should be building rockets to take us OFF Earth.
Educating young people who may some day build those rockets is a good approach too.
textbooks are not obsolete.
But also not all textbooks are equal. There are excellent textbooks, but I can't say I've come across them frequently. Many textbooks exist merely to slightly re-phrase something from an earlier textbook. Some might not work well with a particular student's learning style. And some textbooks are simply poor quality and do more to obstruct learning than facilitate it.
There's no reason to limit the understanding of what constitutes a textbook. E-books, YouTube videos, and commercial instructional videos are all valid learning resources. A wealthy philanthropist could easily hire experts to write stable Wikibooks-style textbooks in the public domain to cover, perhaps not all, but quite a lot, of high school and university level curricula. Even considering traditional paper books, a textbook should be considered one tool among many for a student to learn material. Except for the newest, latest developments in a field, a university library will have multiple versions of roughly equivalent textbooks, and seeing explanations from slightly different perspectives can be enormously valuable.
A phenomenon that I have noticed, both in software and textbooks, is that once a product is more or less optimal, the desire to create new versions requires creating something necessarily sub-optimal. I once went through my university library for a book on a certain topic and I had to find a book with the original discoverer's insight from 1920s, because every book since then had to phrase the subject matter differently and, therefore, poorly. Although non-obvious, it was so simple that there really was only one way to explain it.
Consider calculus. First-year university calculus hasn't changed in 250 years. Second-year university calculus hasn't changed in 100 years. New textbooks aren't being manufactured because all those previous authors failed in their goal.
Oracle has a whole business model of making good software, charging for an upgrade that is deliberately broken, then charging to fix the broken version, instead of simply continuing to support software that already works.
Who knows what they'll try to blame troubled youth on in the next generation?
If it's going to be as big as those earlier excuses, I want to know what it is so I can buy stock in it.
The idea was, if you are exposed to violence, or bigotry, or sexism, or other anti-social behaviors through media, you were more likely to adopt those behaviors.
Some of the most extreme intolerance seems to originate with people who grew up so sheltered from bigotry that they cannot distinguish actual prejudice from honest disagreement.
You misunderstand, it's not merely telling a story, it's predicting automotive technology 25 years into the future! And getting from Seattle to China is telling us that the flying cars will finally be here!
Put a geologist in a spacesuit, give them a camera, hammer, and a quad bike, and
...they'll still be on Earth.
For all I know, if he kept insider trading down to only one employee, maybe that's considered good in this line of work.
That's the definition of gambling.
Generally insurance is risk management with the statistical expectation of breaking even. Gambling is taking risk where the statistical expectation is a loss.
No, that absolutely is not what insurance is about.
The word 'insurance' gets misused quite a bit. A scheme that is universal and compulsory would resemble insurance in a lot of ways but fundamentally not be the same thing.
Interestingly, people on all sides seem to prefer misusing terminology to having an honest dialogue.