Not a very good joke, because Islam has no objection to the existence of pigs, but rather specifically to eating of pigs.
Which makes my point: the existence (or even creating) of things is distinct from using that thing in general, and using in general is distinct from any specific use. For example the same rules that make a pig ritually forbidden (haram) for eating make a dog impure for eating. But it is not haram to keep dogs or pigs as pets.
Tech product development can be a lot like the dating scene: the participants usually have different interests in the transaction. In a nutshell, users are looking for sex, product managers are looking for a relationship.
This drives a lot of the dissatisfaction users have with products.
The truth is -- the truth is complicated. It is *true* that the ability to take your labor other places is a help in facing discrimination, but it is *also* true that some discriminatory attitudes are so widespread that your options for doing so may be limited.
This is easy to understand when it's your own ox being gored; somewhat less so when other people are the one affected. Think of your own jobs; has management by in large been competent and rational? If so, your experience is unusual. If not, chances are you'll experience similar management if you change jobs. The most commonplace human level of achievement in any endeavor is mediocrity.
How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.
The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.
The essential point of the analogy is my claiming your property as my own. Me and my buddies setting up our own "registry of deeds" and depositing pieces of paper in it saying that I own your lot does not change your opinion of who owns it.
If they object to its existence; they shouldn't use it.
Chile is not a third world shithole. It's actually one of the best places in the world to start a business.
In part that's because it's a country run by and for a relatively small a social and financial elite, which may not be to you taste, but is far from making it a "shithole". It's actually quite clean and comfortable if you're middle class, and an excellent place if you aspire to ascend from the middle class to the ranks of the wealthy. If you're poor, expect to work hard without much chance of advancement, but you're probably not living in a hole in the ground; you're living in a house. It's a very *tiny* house by US standards, and if you live in the Santiago like almost half of Chileans do, it's in a neighborhood with epic air pollution, but it's still a house.
Basically imagine a US run by the Republican Party that could actually get things done. Chile might not be your idea of paradise, but it's not the Democratic Republic of Congo either.
Suppose I built a house on a plot of land you owned and you decided to knock it down, which would be within your rights. You'd think I was an idiot if I said, "Well, OK, but don't park your bulldozers in *my* driveway."
This is a not good, but it appears to be a benign failure mode, the way an engineer would design a consumer product to fail if it must. You could encase the battery in a sufficiently rigid capsule and failures would be less frequent but possibly more catastrophic.
It lists the functions of government, in a very broad way that allows government quite a bit of leeway. For example the framers clearly intended for Treasury functions to be exercised by Congress, but in the very first year the Constitution was in effect Congress realized this was unworkable and created the Treasury Department in the executive branch -- this by the way is why we have this whole "Debt Ceiling" nonsense that other countries don't. That was Congress exercising its Treasury powers in ways the framers didn't specifically anticipate.
The framers didn't anticipate having standing armies either; but Congress has wide latitude to "raise" armies as long as appropriations didn't last more than two years. This allowed them to in effect create a standing army by appropriating its budget annually, which it did starting in 1791. This is much like copyright extension; the Constitution specifically grants Congress copyright granting powers for limited terms; however since there is no specific upper limit on the term Congress has for practical purposes the power of granting indefinite copyright terms.
There is nothing in the Constitution which says the executive branch can't demand this information as part of its normal law enforcement activities. That doesn't mean that Facebook is legally compelled to give them that information without a warrant, even though you may feel that is similarly intrusive.
Here's the cold, hard truth: the Constitution cannot protect anyone's freedom if most people develop the habit of mindless compliance or expediency.
I don't see any evidence of Asperger's; an obsession with big ideas does not in itself put you on the autism spectrum.
My point is that Musk is a kind of celebrity entrepreneur, and the celebrity part of that is something he can turn into real monetary value. I think he's got stuff a lot bigger than this rocket shuttle in the pipeline. I don't think he's aiming to be the 21st century's version of Henry Ford (Tesla), Howard Hughes (SpaceX), or Ferdinand von Zeppelin (Hyperloop). I think he wants to be the 21st century's John D. Rockefeller. I think he wants to be instrumental in the transition to a post-fossil fuel world and it's the development of massively scaled battery technology that history will remember him for.
When the time comes he'll need other investors to feel they have to jump in or be left behind. And for that he has to maintain his mystique as a visionary with a regular stream of out-there ideas. They don't all have to work, or even get very far off the drawing board.
Your results will vary by state if you turn to state agencies for things like wage theft or discrimination. The statistics for some states are stunning: In Arkansas there 46 per thousand employees will experience wage theft in any given year.
Depends on what you mean by "break" the law. Yes, a contract which contravenes the law is not enforceable. But a contract which renders the law incapable of proper operation is definitely possible.
The problem with arbitration is an inherent conflict of interest: the arbiter is in effect hired by one of the parties in the dispute. If the hiring party is dissatisfied with the result, he will no longer send his business to that arbitration firm.
If a more streamlined system of dispute resolution is desirable, then the government should set it up. Failing that, it should regulate arbitration firms and disbar lawyers who show favoritism when acting as arviters.
This is not about getting a voter to switch from Clinton to Trump. It's about getting Clinton-leaning voters to stay home and Trump-leaning voters to show up. It's about motivation, and nothing motivates like fear.
Remember Pizzagate? You probably don't personally, because you're not a total jackass. But this is the insidious part of social media psy-ops. By targeting and crafting a narrowcasted message, you operate below the radar; misinformation has longer to seep in and do its work before someone notices and counters it. It's a modern take on divide-an-conquer: segment and stimulate.
put a simple facade on a system rather than simplify it. Leaving the user no recourse in unexpected situation (other than to manipulate often undocumented registry settings) is practically a Microsoft signature.
And what makes a "blockchain" phone more secure than a "non-blockchain" one?
Blockchain is an algorithm; or I suppose it could be viewed as an architectural viewpoint. But until someone says exactly what problem they are using blockchain to solve (and how) there's absolutely no reason to believe a "Blockchain Phone" would be any more secure than an ordinary phone running blockchain apps.
I do. Sonequa Martin-Green is black, and many white people perceive black women, particularly athletic ones, as unfeminine. Case in point, Michelle Obama. In fact the truly lunatic fringe believes she actually *is* a man.
This is not an entirely objective question; it's an emotional reaction. Some men might be put off by Serena Williams awe-inspiring physique, others aren't. Some would look at coltish Martin-Green in a boyish haircut and unisex uniform as androgynous, and her blackness would be just enough to put it over the edge.
This isn't purely a matter of racism; if you're a man your judgment of a woman's femininity is tied up with how attractive you find her, and studies show that you are more likely to be attracted to people who resemble you or one of your parents.
Then you go on to post a bunch of loosely connected and out of context examples to help feed a very partisan and divisive narrative.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Dividing the nation along race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is to promote irrational behavior. Dividing a nation along political lines... well that's what parties are for. Generating an alternative narrative is their function, and it's not irrational as long as you stick to facts.
That these are selected facts goes without saying. You are completely free to construct a contradictory narrative from other facts, if you have them.
If I point out there's smoke pouring out of your house windows, one possible correct response is, "Well I'm cooking a brisket and things got a little smoky." Saying, "You're constructing a narrative that construes fire from smoke," is simply stating the obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems we have a choice between "lazy fuckers" who want a "free pass", and greedy fuckers who want to be able to take whatever they want.
Not a very good joke, because Islam has no objection to the existence of pigs, but rather specifically to eating of pigs.
Which makes my point: the existence (or even creating) of things is distinct from using that thing in general, and using in general is distinct from any specific use. For example the same rules that make a pig ritually forbidden (haram) for eating make a dog impure for eating. But it is not haram to keep dogs or pigs as pets.
If you want to be clever, avoid being labored.
Tech product development can be a lot like the dating scene: the participants usually have different interests in the transaction. In a nutshell, users are looking for sex, product managers are looking for a relationship.
This drives a lot of the dissatisfaction users have with products.
The truth is -- the truth is complicated. It is *true* that the ability to take your labor other places is a help in facing discrimination, but it is *also* true that some discriminatory attitudes are so widespread that your options for doing so may be limited.
This is easy to understand when it's your own ox being gored; somewhat less so when other people are the one affected. Think of your own jobs; has management by in large been competent and rational? If so, your experience is unusual. If not, chances are you'll experience similar management if you change jobs. The most commonplace human level of achievement in any endeavor is mediocrity.
How? By site policies being neither here nor there with respect to net neutrality.
The whole point of net neutrality is to create a kind of unfettered competition between information sources, not to compel every information source to have a policy for its content that you approve of. The solution to your not liking Yourtube's monetization policy is to turn to a different site, something you'll be hampered from doing under a non-neutral Internet.
That does not follow. If they think the road should not be there, pretending the road doesn't exist does not change anything.
The essential point of the analogy is my claiming your property as my own. Me and my buddies setting up our own "registry of deeds" and depositing pieces of paper in it saying that I own your lot does not change your opinion of who owns it.
If they object to its existence; they shouldn't use it.
Why not?
Chile is not a third world shithole. It's actually one of the best places in the world to start a business.
In part that's because it's a country run by and for a relatively small a social and financial elite, which may not be to you taste, but is far from making it a "shithole". It's actually quite clean and comfortable if you're middle class, and an excellent place if you aspire to ascend from the middle class to the ranks of the wealthy. If you're poor, expect to work hard without much chance of advancement, but you're probably not living in a hole in the ground; you're living in a house. It's a very *tiny* house by US standards, and if you live in the Santiago like almost half of Chileans do, it's in a neighborhood with epic air pollution, but it's still a house.
Basically imagine a US run by the Republican Party that could actually get things done. Chile might not be your idea of paradise, but it's not the Democratic Republic of Congo either.
This is an asinine argument.
Suppose I built a house on a plot of land you owned and you decided to knock it down, which would be within your rights. You'd think I was an idiot if I said, "Well, OK, but don't park your bulldozers in *my* driveway."
This is a not good, but it appears to be a benign failure mode, the way an engineer would design a consumer product to fail if it must. You could encase the battery in a sufficiently rigid capsule and failures would be less frequent but possibly more catastrophic.
It lists the functions of government, in a very broad way that allows government quite a bit of leeway. For example the framers clearly intended for Treasury functions to be exercised by Congress, but in the very first year the Constitution was in effect Congress realized this was unworkable and created the Treasury Department in the executive branch -- this by the way is why we have this whole "Debt Ceiling" nonsense that other countries don't. That was Congress exercising its Treasury powers in ways the framers didn't specifically anticipate.
The framers didn't anticipate having standing armies either; but Congress has wide latitude to "raise" armies as long as appropriations didn't last more than two years. This allowed them to in effect create a standing army by appropriating its budget annually, which it did starting in 1791. This is much like copyright extension; the Constitution specifically grants Congress copyright granting powers for limited terms; however since there is no specific upper limit on the term Congress has for practical purposes the power of granting indefinite copyright terms.
There is nothing in the Constitution which says the executive branch can't demand this information as part of its normal law enforcement activities. That doesn't mean that Facebook is legally compelled to give them that information without a warrant, even though you may feel that is similarly intrusive.
Here's the cold, hard truth: the Constitution cannot protect anyone's freedom if most people develop the habit of mindless compliance or expediency.
I don't see any evidence of Asperger's; an obsession with big ideas does not in itself put you on the autism spectrum.
My point is that Musk is a kind of celebrity entrepreneur, and the celebrity part of that is something he can turn into real monetary value. I think he's got stuff a lot bigger than this rocket shuttle in the pipeline. I don't think he's aiming to be the 21st century's version of Henry Ford (Tesla), Howard Hughes (SpaceX), or Ferdinand von Zeppelin (Hyperloop). I think he wants to be the 21st century's John D. Rockefeller. I think he wants to be instrumental in the transition to a post-fossil fuel world and it's the development of massively scaled battery technology that history will remember him for.
When the time comes he'll need other investors to feel they have to jump in or be left behind. And for that he has to maintain his mystique as a visionary with a regular stream of out-there ideas. They don't all have to work, or even get very far off the drawing board.
Nah. Guys like this have to keep the old mystique burnished; that goes all the way back to Howard Hughes.
Your results will vary by state if you turn to state agencies for things like wage theft or discrimination. The statistics for some states are stunning: In Arkansas there 46 per thousand employees will experience wage theft in any given year.
Depends on what you mean by "break" the law. Yes, a contract which contravenes the law is not enforceable. But a contract which renders the law incapable of proper operation is definitely possible.
The problem with arbitration is an inherent conflict of interest: the arbiter is in effect hired by one of the parties in the dispute. If the hiring party is dissatisfied with the result, he will no longer send his business to that arbitration firm.
If a more streamlined system of dispute resolution is desirable, then the government should set it up. Failing that, it should regulate arbitration firms and disbar lawyers who show favoritism when acting as arviters.
Unfortunately you really can't have it both ways: simple and tons of features.
You also seem to have forgotten the multi-sourced reports before the election that Trump, at most, had a one-in-four chance of winning.
Delivered to the wrong audience, largely.
This is not about getting a voter to switch from Clinton to Trump. It's about getting Clinton-leaning voters to stay home and Trump-leaning voters to show up. It's about motivation, and nothing motivates like fear.
Remember Pizzagate? You probably don't personally, because you're not a total jackass. But this is the insidious part of social media psy-ops. By targeting and crafting a narrowcasted message, you operate below the radar; misinformation has longer to seep in and do its work before someone notices and counters it. It's a modern take on divide-an-conquer: segment and stimulate.
put a simple facade on a system rather than simplify it. Leaving the user no recourse in unexpected situation (other than to manipulate often undocumented registry settings) is practically a Microsoft signature.
Close -- block builds a distributed, non-repudiatable audit trail in an environment where you don't trust the other parties.
But you know who you do end up trusting? The people who wrote and installed the software on your phone.
And what makes a "blockchain" phone more secure than a "non-blockchain" one?
Blockchain is an algorithm; or I suppose it could be viewed as an architectural viewpoint. But until someone says exactly what problem they are using blockchain to solve (and how) there's absolutely no reason to believe a "Blockchain Phone" would be any more secure than an ordinary phone running blockchain apps.
I do. Sonequa Martin-Green is black, and many white people perceive black women, particularly athletic ones, as unfeminine. Case in point, Michelle Obama. In fact the truly lunatic fringe believes she actually *is* a man.
This is not an entirely objective question; it's an emotional reaction. Some men might be put off by Serena Williams awe-inspiring physique, others aren't. Some would look at coltish Martin-Green in a boyish haircut and unisex uniform as androgynous, and her blackness would be just enough to put it over the edge.
This isn't purely a matter of racism; if you're a man your judgment of a woman's femininity is tied up with how attractive you find her, and studies show that you are more likely to be attracted to people who resemble you or one of your parents.
Then you go on to post a bunch of loosely connected and out of context examples to help feed a very partisan and divisive narrative.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Dividing the nation along race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion is to promote irrational behavior. Dividing a nation along political lines... well that's what parties are for. Generating an alternative narrative is their function, and it's not irrational as long as you stick to facts.
That these are selected facts goes without saying. You are completely free to construct a contradictory narrative from other facts, if you have them.
If I point out there's smoke pouring out of your house windows, one possible correct response is, "Well I'm cooking a brisket and things got a little smoky." Saying, "You're constructing a narrative that construes fire from smoke," is simply stating the obvious.