The term Cracker is much more descriptive, draws a distinction between the two but, just never seemed to catch the ear of the media darlings the put on the news.
What makes you think she wasn't? She went to Stanford, which isn't exactly a school for chumps, so she probably has a pretty good head on her shoulders. However, being a good engineer does not necessarily equate to being a good CEO. If nothing else, she's useful as a PR piece in these days of "girls in STEM".
Gee, lets do the same with everything. No government regulation for anything. After all, you can choose what is an acceptable risk. So what if you didn't know that Uber drivers aren't properly insured? Why not unregulated food manufacturers who can sell you bacteria-laced meat? Why not unregulated cars that are unsafe at any speed?
Yes, food & automobile manufacturers have a strong incentive to kill their customers. It's good for long-term profits.
Why not unregulated medicines that are as likely to kill as to cure?
Vioxx was FDA approved, and killed 60,000 people. Meanwhile, effective drugs are unnecessarily kept off of the market by the FDA, like Provenge. And those are only 2 examples.
And unregulated banks that can take your money and run?
The fact is that regulations are supposed to ensure that the consumer doesn't have to spend hours investigation who is and who isn't competent themselves, as well as provide a feedback mechanism when the regulations are broken.
There are a boatload of ways to find out about what products are good and which businesses provide competent employees, such as the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratory, as well as review web sites, etc. I'm not saying unregulated markets would be perfect, but I believe that they would by and large be a better solution than the current regulatory morass we have in this country.
The "terrorists are cowards" meme is absurd. Whatever their misguided reasons, someone who is prepared to risk death or lengthy imprisonment for a cause is not a physical coward.
It's absurd from the sense that the terrorist that is carrying out the attack is not a coward, however the terrorist leaders that order them to go out and carry out the attacks tend to be cowered away in safety.
I used to have an 80 GB iPod up until about a year ago. I was able to load up a whole boatload of movies, and connect it to a TV using an RCA cable that plugged into the headphone jack.
This is sexist in that it extends an invite for girls to code - for something pretty, something cute, something showy. Something typically associated with girls.
I agree. They should put them on a project that's less showy but more important. Perhaps they could reprogram the White House's security system. It's not like they could do a worse job than is already being done. And if they did? Oh, well.
The technology required for wormholes is so far removed from our current and plausible near-future capabilities that to throw lots of money at it would almost certainly be a total boondoggle.
So basically what he's saying is we might as well dump the money into a black hole. Sounds like most government programs.
I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex. Obama's changing of the rules via executive order are just as bad as Bush's changing of the rules via executive order.
Slashdot Mirror
The term Cracker is much more descriptive, draws a distinction between the two but, just never seemed to catch the ear of the media darlings the put on the news.
Maybe that's because of it's alternate meaning...
...she maybe was a useful engineer at Google...
What makes you think that?
What makes you think she wasn't? She went to Stanford, which isn't exactly a school for chumps, so she probably has a pretty good head on her shoulders. However, being a good engineer does not necessarily equate to being a good CEO. If nothing else, she's useful as a PR piece in these days of "girls in STEM".
Gee, lets do the same with everything. No government regulation for anything. After all, you can choose what is an acceptable risk. So what if you didn't know that Uber drivers aren't properly insured? Why not unregulated food manufacturers who can sell you bacteria-laced meat? Why not unregulated cars that are unsafe at any speed?
Yes, food & automobile manufacturers have a strong incentive to kill their customers. It's good for long-term profits.
Why not unregulated medicines that are as likely to kill as to cure?
Vioxx was FDA approved, and killed 60,000 people. Meanwhile, effective drugs are unnecessarily kept off of the market by the FDA, like Provenge. And those are only 2 examples.
And unregulated banks that can take your money and run?
Or the regulated banks that can do that legally.
Hey, go all the way - allow the issuing of unregulated currencies
Why not? The Fed has done such a bang-up job.
the use of non-credentialed teachers from the local state pen, and everything else?
Yes, credentialed pedophiles that the teachers' union support are much better.
The fact is that regulations are supposed to ensure that the consumer doesn't have to spend hours investigation who is and who isn't competent themselves, as well as provide a feedback mechanism when the regulations are broken.
There are a boatload of ways to find out about what products are good and which businesses provide competent employees, such as the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, Underwriters Laboratory, as well as review web sites, etc. I'm not saying unregulated markets would be perfect, but I believe that they would by and large be a better solution than the current regulatory morass we have in this country.
If birds had teeth, they would evolve into mammal-eaters and pose great threat to any mamal that lives above surface.
Eagles, hawks & owls all eat mammals.Sure, they're mice, rabbits, small cats, etc., but they're still mammals.
Shouldn't it be up to the consumer to choose if the risks using Uber are acceptable? Why does the government need to be involved?
The "terrorists are cowards" meme is absurd. Whatever their misguided reasons, someone who is prepared to risk death or lengthy imprisonment for a cause is not a physical coward.
It's absurd from the sense that the terrorist that is carrying out the attack is not a coward, however the terrorist leaders that order them to go out and carry out the attacks tend to be cowered away in safety.
You'll find your bag of money on the basement level of the parking garage behind the garbage can in the southwest corner.
Sincerely,
The Trial Lawyers
I used to have an 80 GB iPod up until about a year ago. I was able to load up a whole boatload of movies, and connect it to a TV using an RCA cable that plugged into the headphone jack.
Sadly you cant get 4K content yet,
You can't? I thought there were some services providing 4K.
Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
How about putting police who violate peoples' civil rights in prison?
Don't worry, I'm sure President Obama won't sign this bill.
Portrait monitors were all the rage back in the 90's. All the desktop publishing people used them for working with Aldus Pagemaker.
Don't bother, it will have been boring.
I was the only one there, but I found myself to be quite entertaining.
Please first demonstrate to me that chimps and other animals value bodily liberty, and only then we can talk to give them the right.
Everybody's talking about animal rights, but nobody ever mentions animal responsibilities.
All your the base are belong to the us.
This is sexist in that it extends an invite for girls to code - for something pretty, something cute, something showy. Something typically associated with girls.
I agree. They should put them on a project that's less showy but more important. Perhaps they could reprogram the White House's security system. It's not like they could do a worse job than is already being done. And if they did? Oh, well.
Does that cover the government projects where they bail to private companies that are to big to fail?
Yes. They should have let them fail, but then they wouldn't have gotten the golden parachutes.
The technology required for wormholes is so far removed from our current and plausible near-future capabilities that to throw lots of money at it would almost certainly be a total boondoggle.
So basically what he's saying is we might as well dump the money into a black hole. Sounds like most government programs.
Who wants to bet that Obama and Holder were great First Amendment supporters back in 1992 during the Body Count "Cop Killer" brouhaha?
Freedom of speech, just watch what you say.
Degrees Fahrenheit.
It didn't help that it was about 15 degrees outside when I typed it.
As you can see, the autocorrect on this thing is awesome!
Unwanted to take advantage of this, but I only have an iPhone 6 plus. :-(
I don't disagree with what Obama did in principle, but I disagree with the way he did it. We're still a nation of lex, not rex. Obama's changing of the rules via executive order are just as bad as Bush's changing of the rules via executive order.
Typo. he's == he.