Important, but not necessarily critical. Remember when MS Office was only going to run on Windows 8 mobile devices? They then decided to put it on iOS and Android, so they could make money on Office. I'd say that Office is probably their most critical product right now, followed by some of their enterprise-level stuff, with Windows supporting that. I don't think they much care about preserving their monopoly in consumer space, since they've lost it to iOS and Android.
But developers could embed calls to IE into their software, so those programs would stop working.
Microsoft put a HTML display engine into their OS and made IE.exe a small program that handled HTTP and handed all the display and Javascript off to the system library. Their IE-less OS, I believe, removed the library as well as the application.
IE 5 for the Macintosh was widely considered the best browsing environment of its time. IE 6 was also a good browser when introduced.
Then IE6 languished for years and years, because it didn't have serious competition and people were going to use it anyway, right? So why spend any money improving it?
And so Microsoft lost round 2 of the browsing wars, and has never recovered.
There are people I would calmly trust my life to. Some of them, in my opinion, don't have really good judgment, and I'm not sure I want to trust their friends. That's the problem I see with webs of trust.
If anything remotely like the way it is handled in RPM repositories, at least the identity of the author is different.
urlib and urllib would be submitted by 2 different authors.
menaning that pypi would either "installing urllib, signed by 0xb00b1e5 'original@author.com' ? [Y/N]" or
"installing urllib, signed by 0xdeadbeef 'evil@hacker.com' ? [Y/N] "
When I'm looking for a library, I typically don't know or care who the original author was. I just want the library to do something I want done.
It means you at least lean Democrat, of the two major parties. Since 1980, they've been the more fiscally conservative party as well as the more socially liberal.
If you wanted a party that was seriously fiscally conservative, like the pre-1980 Republicans, I'm sorry for you.
You do realize that we had advertising before the net caught on. That advertising was in magazines or newspapers or on television or radio or billboards. Except for coupons, there was no way to directly connect any particular advertising with sales. There's a saying about a manager saying "Half my advertising is wasted, but I don't know which half!"
Sure, exercise is something to make time for. So's cooking healthy, along with things like paying attention to family and friends and doing necessary household chores and sleeping, and this has to fit around commuting and work. At some point, all this is going to break down and people will ditch activities. Frazzled people often can't get up the energy to exercise (despite its ability to lower stress).
In another two years "oh, only the vacuum of space can cool the Zafflebrox computers needed to mine bitcoins. good luck with your i7."
Nope. Vacuum is a very effective insulator. You want something better at carrying away heat, like vast computer complexes spread out on the ocean floor.
Lots of Democrats voted for Sanders. I did, and that was one convention level above the caucus, so it was considerably more effective than a primary vote.
So, if you toss out the superdelegates...Clinton still won. She had the overwhelming support of the establishment, and was, by a small margin, the pick of the primary voters and caucus delegates.
Clinton has been the victim of right-wing smears for decades now. Sanders was not under attack from the right. By describing himself as a socialist, he would have completely alienated a fair chunk of the electorate, and inspired them to contribute and work against him. Sanders was less electable than Clinton, since the polls did not consider that.
In addition you seem not to have learned critical thinking at school, college and university otherwise you would not depend on Uber but disregard voting.
Which provides more individual benefit? If I vote, my vote is unlikely to be critical for any race. My vote for President is totally ineffectual. There's approximately nothing that would change if I stayed home and didn't vote. On the other hand, with Uber I can get to or from the airport or somewhere else in the metro area. That's useful.
They're far too distracted with putting their lives together, trying to get jobs that will allow them to pay off their debt and still have a life, hoping they might just possibly be in position to buy a house and raise a family sometime, assuming a medical emergency doesn't wipe them out first. Facetime is a welcome distraction from their real problems.
There's also people whose votes don't matter, because they're in states that can reasonably be expected to go to a certain party. In Minnesota, it appears that, if the state gets very close to going Republican, the Republicans have won anyway, so that, if my vote is decisive in my state, it's pointless anyway.
Read the Federalist paper on the Electoral College. Now, look at how it's worked for the past couple hundred years plus. There's no resemblance.
The other argument I saw was to give slave states more political power.
There's no evidence that it was seriously intended to serve other purposes, and people who benefit from it like to make up stories to support their positions.
Building relationships in government is called cronyism, a form of corruption.
It's corruption when a couple of legislators compromise and work together?
This is why protections against firing the bureaucracy should be removed.
You want to see corruption? Do that. Suddenly, people will be fired from jobs they're good at for people who are better connected with the party in power. This has been tried and failed before.
There is absolutely nothing new about this. "It's not what you know, but who you know" was a common saying over fifty years ago, and there were lots of stories about the boss's friend getting a good job.
Equifax wasn't legally required to have inadequate security measures. How much budget and authority the security people had was a business decision, and Equifax should be held accountable for bad business decisions that hurt others.
I praised my son for working hard and getting through things. (I also sometimes told him, "You're smart. Figure it out.") It seemed to pay off. Fortunately, we had an advanced math program available that was challenging, so he got used to working at math much younger than I had.
One good thing about being smart: when I hit the "gee, I've got to study this, it isn't embedding itself in my brain almost automatically" point, I was able to remember what people had said about studying and the like and put it to use.
Okay, we've established that you lack clue zero point zero zero one about how restaurant pay works in the US. I'm not surprised it's different in at least some European countries. However, you do not seem to realize that money is, in fact, fungible, and an income stream that consists of wages and tips is, in fact, an income stream.
So? Different people do different things while working out. You will find that the judicial branch is quite able to keep a straight face when faced with things you don't approve of.
I happen to believe that the US can do things, such as produce solar panels. Obama wanted a domestic solar power industry, so we weren't as reliant on China. You don't know what effect this will have forty years down the line. You really don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Important, but not necessarily critical. Remember when MS Office was only going to run on Windows 8 mobile devices? They then decided to put it on iOS and Android, so they could make money on Office. I'd say that Office is probably their most critical product right now, followed by some of their enterprise-level stuff, with Windows supporting that. I don't think they much care about preserving their monopoly in consumer space, since they've lost it to iOS and Android.
Microsoft put a HTML display engine into their OS and made IE.exe a small program that handled HTTP and handed all the display and Javascript off to the system library. Their IE-less OS, I believe, removed the library as well as the application.
IE 5 for the Macintosh was widely considered the best browsing environment of its time. IE 6 was also a good browser when introduced.
Then IE6 languished for years and years, because it didn't have serious competition and people were going to use it anyway, right? So why spend any money improving it?
And so Microsoft lost round 2 of the browsing wars, and has never recovered.
There are people I would calmly trust my life to. Some of them, in my opinion, don't have really good judgment, and I'm not sure I want to trust their friends. That's the problem I see with webs of trust.
When I'm looking for a library, I typically don't know or care who the original author was. I just want the library to do something I want done.
It means you at least lean Democrat, of the two major parties. Since 1980, they've been the more fiscally conservative party as well as the more socially liberal.
If you wanted a party that was seriously fiscally conservative, like the pre-1980 Republicans, I'm sorry for you.
You do realize that we had advertising before the net caught on. That advertising was in magazines or newspapers or on television or radio or billboards. Except for coupons, there was no way to directly connect any particular advertising with sales. There's a saying about a manager saying "Half my advertising is wasted, but I don't know which half!"
There are disclaimers, but they're not immediately obvious. Papers will tell you where the funding comes from.
Sure, exercise is something to make time for. So's cooking healthy, along with things like paying attention to family and friends and doing necessary household chores and sleeping, and this has to fit around commuting and work. At some point, all this is going to break down and people will ditch activities. Frazzled people often can't get up the energy to exercise (despite its ability to lower stress).
Nope. Vacuum is a very effective insulator. You want something better at carrying away heat, like vast computer complexes spread out on the ocean floor.
In other words, millennials are very much like every generation to precede them.
Lots of Democrats voted for Sanders. I did, and that was one convention level above the caucus, so it was considerably more effective than a primary vote.
So, if you toss out the superdelegates...Clinton still won. She had the overwhelming support of the establishment, and was, by a small margin, the pick of the primary voters and caucus delegates.
Clinton has been the victim of right-wing smears for decades now. Sanders was not under attack from the right. By describing himself as a socialist, he would have completely alienated a fair chunk of the electorate, and inspired them to contribute and work against him. Sanders was less electable than Clinton, since the polls did not consider that.
Which provides more individual benefit? If I vote, my vote is unlikely to be critical for any race. My vote for President is totally ineffectual. There's approximately nothing that would change if I stayed home and didn't vote. On the other hand, with Uber I can get to or from the airport or somewhere else in the metro area. That's useful.
I supported Sanders in the nomination process. That's far more effective than supporting any third party candidate.
They're far too distracted with putting their lives together, trying to get jobs that will allow them to pay off their debt and still have a life, hoping they might just possibly be in position to buy a house and raise a family sometime, assuming a medical emergency doesn't wipe them out first. Facetime is a welcome distraction from their real problems.
There's also people whose votes don't matter, because they're in states that can reasonably be expected to go to a certain party. In Minnesota, it appears that, if the state gets very close to going Republican, the Republicans have won anyway, so that, if my vote is decisive in my state, it's pointless anyway.
Read the Federalist paper on the Electoral College. Now, look at how it's worked for the past couple hundred years plus. There's no resemblance.
The other argument I saw was to give slave states more political power.
There's no evidence that it was seriously intended to serve other purposes, and people who benefit from it like to make up stories to support their positions.
It's corruption when a couple of legislators compromise and work together?
You want to see corruption? Do that. Suddenly, people will be fired from jobs they're good at for people who are better connected with the party in power. This has been tried and failed before.
There is absolutely nothing new about this. "It's not what you know, but who you know" was a common saying over fifty years ago, and there were lots of stories about the boss's friend getting a good job.
Equifax wasn't legally required to have inadequate security measures. How much budget and authority the security people had was a business decision, and Equifax should be held accountable for bad business decisions that hurt others.
I praised my son for working hard and getting through things. (I also sometimes told him, "You're smart. Figure it out.") It seemed to pay off. Fortunately, we had an advanced math program available that was challenging, so he got used to working at math much younger than I had.
One good thing about being smart: when I hit the "gee, I've got to study this, it isn't embedding itself in my brain almost automatically" point, I was able to remember what people had said about studying and the like and put it to use.
Okay, we've established that you lack clue zero point zero zero one about how restaurant pay works in the US. I'm not surprised it's different in at least some European countries. However, you do not seem to realize that money is, in fact, fungible, and an income stream that consists of wages and tips is, in fact, an income stream.
So? Different people do different things while working out. You will find that the judicial branch is quite able to keep a straight face when faced with things you don't approve of.
I happen to believe that the US can do things, such as produce solar panels. Obama wanted a domestic solar power industry, so we weren't as reliant on China. You don't know what effect this will have forty years down the line. You really don't.
I take it you don't like the free market.
The US has been subsidizing solar panels in order to get them going. China is subsidizing them to get a monopoly position.