Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.
So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?
The jury is still out. Working at home allows you to complete tasks on your own time and in your own environment where you are presumably less distracted.
But you also lose the ability to have face-to-face collaboration, which is very important in certain industries. Scheduling a skype meeting is different than chatting with someone in the hall about what might be needed or expected for an upcoming project. There's a reason a lot of deals and agreements get made in person, and people have had the ability to meet via "video-conference" for decades now; yet face-to-face contact is stil preferred in certain situations.
I think it's often best to have it both ways...to come in for meetings sometimes, but to work at home for projects that require intensive work.
But what is 20$ out of the box in value? You can't trade these items away in most cases, so it's value is always only what the user is willing to pay for it.
But most importantly, these items in general do not affect your ability to play the game. If you get a lootbox with a nifty skin for your Overwatch character, or you get in game currency that allows you to buy that same skin, in both cases it doesn't affect the game at all; it just looks nice. I'd say people might have a point if the functionality of the contents of box altered the game in your favor, but I don't know if instances where that happens.
They were, in fact making a tasteless joke. The cat was named "tardar sauce" and the owner originally called her "Tard" for short, but once the cat became famous, a number of people objected to the use of the word Tard, which is short for "retard", and complained; the owner refers to the cat by her name in full now, supposedly.
But the word "customer" means something specific. It doesn't involve merely using a service or a tool. I am not a "customer" of the city of San Francisco because I walk across the street using a crosswalk they installed. I'm not a "customer" of Chrome because I downloaded their free browser; I'm not a "customer" of a radio station or any advertisement I hear on the station just because I listen to their station or the ad. Allowing words like this with clear definitions ("a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business.") to morph into something else else allows us to have stupid definitions like a business claiming it "lost" money when you don't pay to hear a song from a musician. So the practical difference is only in the accuracy of how the word is used, and that's actually important, as the morphed meaning of those words often end up making their way into laws and regulations.
This. It seems that the guy who left doesn't seem to understand this, or if he does, he doesn't explain how Google is no longer being innovative for people who buy or display ads. I'm a user, not a customer. And yes, as others have said, by being a user, I'm the actual product; that is, my eyeballs and clicks on ads make other folks money. Which is why I have no compunction about using ad-blocking software.
So this shows how much he is out of the loop. For a CEO of a major technology company to say that is actually disturbing.
Social Networks are tools. It's not that they exist that is the issue; it's how they are used, just like any tool. Kids/teenagers are social creatures, even more so (it seems to me) than a lot of adults, and kids can fall out of the loop, lose friends and suffer social consequences if they are simply *banned* from using social networks. That's like telling a kid in the 70s/80s that they can never use the telephone to call their friends because bad things happen over the phone.
Define "toxic". I have worked in numerous environments where superiors were blunt, curt, and insistent. That could easily be interpreted as rude behavior by some, but in many environments that increases productivity by "encouraging" people to be more efficient and more productive. Steve Jobs was famous for being someone unfun to work with.
What bizarre set of questions, axioms and probability of truths would lead someone to conclude that drilling lots of tunnels without governmental oversight under major metropolitan areas is something that will reduce traffic, be good for the environment, etc?.
I'm sure Perter Jackson's ears perked up at this announcement. He loves to put a lot of bloat into his movies, which translates well to TV. A lot of the stuff in NZ is probably still intact and would make for great sets I'm sure. The problem is that if they were to work with him he would probably demand a lot of benefits for NZ; the Hobbit movies were *expensive* but they made a ton, so...
Guilermo Del Toro was supposed to do the Hobbit before PJ took over, so they might be able to get him involved...
Yes, but OSX and iOS use Helvetica Neue as their system font I think, and that's closely associated with Helvetica. Not Arial, which is a font all Windows OS can read. Which is why you have had to use both Arial and Helvetica in a css font stack if you want to make sure both OS can see roughly the same font.
I just find it odd that IBM chooses to compare their new font to one closely associated with an OS that generally has had nothing to do with them, rather than one associated with an OS that was developed in tandem with a lot of IBM's advances.
I find it amusing that IBM, a company with a track record of working with Microsoft and Dos and other non-MAC OS would compare their new font to Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS. Why they wouldn't say "IBM Plex is the new Arial" is beyond me, especially since those two fonts are so similar.
Most of the Marvel movies follow a specific formula. And it turns out that their movies get consistently high aggregate reviews on RT. And they also consistently do well at the box office. What their movies have in common is complexity. Almost all of them have a pretty complex plot with a fair amount of twist and turns that require you to pay attention if you want to get anything more out of the movie than explosions and super hero fighting.
No, but you can appreciate a movie like Bladerunner 2049 *better* on a larger screen. There are certain scenes that evoke a sense of grandeur...and you miss grandeur by definition on a smaller screen.
By not "compromising that pleasure" you are doing just that; the film is meant to be seen on a huge screen. It really is a masterpiece, and I don't care how nice your system is, it just won't be the same. Trust me.
L-3 Communications Land O'Lakes Estee Lauder Lear Leggett & Platt Lennar Lexmark International Liberty Global Liberty Media Liberty Mutual Insurance Group Eli Lilly Limited Brands Lincoln National Liz Claiborne Lockheed Martin Loews Longs Drug Stores Lowe's
The sad thing is that the judge realizes that each of these companies will try to get non-technical people to be jurors, throwing out anyone with a technical background. The judge even admonished the press to report on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.
So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?
The jury is still out. Working at home allows you to complete tasks on your own time and in your own environment where you are presumably less distracted.
But you also lose the ability to have face-to-face collaboration, which is very important in certain industries. Scheduling a skype meeting is different than chatting with someone in the hall about what might be needed or expected for an upcoming project. There's a reason a lot of deals and agreements get made in person, and people have had the ability to meet via "video-conference" for decades now; yet face-to-face contact is stil preferred in certain situations.
I think it's often best to have it both ways...to come in for meetings sometimes, but to work at home for projects that require intensive work.
But what is 20$ out of the box in value? You can't trade these items away in most cases, so it's value is always only what the user is willing to pay for it.
But most importantly, these items in general do not affect your ability to play the game. If you get a lootbox with a nifty skin for your Overwatch character, or you get in game currency that allows you to buy that same skin, in both cases it doesn't affect the game at all; it just looks nice. I'd say people might have a point if the functionality of the contents of box altered the game in your favor, but I don't know if instances where that happens.
They were, in fact making a tasteless joke. The cat was named "tardar sauce" and the owner originally called her "Tard" for short, but once the cat became famous, a number of people objected to the use of the word Tard, which is short for "retard", and complained; the owner refers to the cat by her name in full now, supposedly.
Not from an attorney, no. I know of many jokes *about* them, but none *from* them.
But the word "customer" means something specific. It doesn't involve merely using a service or a tool. I am not a "customer" of the city of San Francisco because I walk across the street using a crosswalk they installed. I'm not a "customer" of Chrome because I downloaded their free browser; I'm not a "customer" of a radio station or any advertisement I hear on the station just because I listen to their station or the ad. Allowing words like this with clear definitions ("a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business.") to morph into something else else allows us to have stupid definitions like a business claiming it "lost" money when you don't pay to hear a song from a musician. So the practical difference is only in the accuracy of how the word is used, and that's actually important, as the morphed meaning of those words often end up making their way into laws and regulations.
Since I cannot so it, you will have to imagine it...
"Insert meme .jpg of Grumpy Cat with the word "Good!" in a bold Inpact font at the bottom in white."
This. It seems that the guy who left doesn't seem to understand this, or if he does, he doesn't explain how Google is no longer being innovative for people who buy or display ads. I'm a user, not a customer. And yes, as others have said, by being a user, I'm the actual product; that is, my eyeballs and clicks on ads make other folks money. Which is why I have no compunction about using ad-blocking software.
So this shows how much he is out of the loop. For a CEO of a major technology company to say that is actually disturbing.
Social Networks are tools. It's not that they exist that is the issue; it's how they are used, just like any tool. Kids/teenagers are social creatures, even more so (it seems to me) than a lot of adults, and kids can fall out of the loop, lose friends and suffer social consequences if they are simply *banned* from using social networks. That's like telling a kid in the 70s/80s that they can never use the telephone to call their friends because bad things happen over the phone.
No. Deport you instead.
Define "toxic". I have worked in numerous environments where superiors were blunt, curt, and insistent. That could easily be interpreted as rude behavior by some, but in many environments that increases productivity by "encouraging" people to be more efficient and more productive. Steve Jobs was famous for being someone unfun to work with.
What bizarre set of questions, axioms and probability of truths would lead someone to conclude that drilling lots of tunnels without governmental oversight under major metropolitan areas is something that will reduce traffic, be good for the environment, etc?.
I suspect that it wouldn't be hard for him to convince them to do it again on the same land.
And it looks like the Shire is doing well for itself as a major tourist attraction...
http://www.hobbitontours.com/e...
Oh wait, they went bankrupt. Never mind!
Tasty juice tho.
I'm sure Perter Jackson's ears perked up at this announcement. He loves to put a lot of bloat into his movies, which translates well to TV. A lot of the stuff in NZ is probably still intact and would make for great sets I'm sure. The problem is that if they were to work with him he would probably demand a lot of benefits for NZ; the Hobbit movies were *expensive* but they made a ton, so...
Guilermo Del Toro was supposed to do the Hobbit before PJ took over, so they might be able to get him involved...
These sorts of jokes, they write themselves.
Yes, but OSX and iOS use Helvetica Neue as their system font I think, and that's closely associated with Helvetica. Not Arial, which is a font all Windows OS can read. Which is why you have had to use both Arial and Helvetica in a css font stack if you want to make sure both OS can see roughly the same font.
I just find it odd that IBM chooses to compare their new font to one closely associated with an OS that generally has had nothing to do with them, rather than one associated with an OS that was developed in tandem with a lot of IBM's advances.
I find it amusing that IBM, a company with a track record of working with Microsoft and Dos and other non-MAC OS would compare their new font to Helvetica, a font closely associated with the Mac OS. Why they wouldn't say "IBM Plex is the new Arial" is beyond me, especially since those two fonts are so similar.
And yet, accurate.
Most of the Marvel movies follow a specific formula. And it turns out that their movies get consistently high aggregate reviews on RT. And they also consistently do well at the box office. What their movies have in common is complexity. Almost all of them have a pretty complex plot with a fair amount of twist and turns that require you to pay attention if you want to get anything more out of the movie than explosions and super hero fighting.
No, but you can appreciate a movie like Bladerunner 2049 *better* on a larger screen. There are certain scenes that evoke a sense of grandeur...and you miss grandeur by definition on a smaller screen.
By not "compromising that pleasure" you are doing just that; the film is meant to be seen on a huge screen. It really is a masterpiece, and I don't care how nice your system is, it just won't be the same. Trust me.
L-3 Communications
Land O'Lakes
Estee Lauder
Lear
Leggett & Platt
Lennar
Lexmark International
Liberty Global
Liberty Media
Liberty Mutual Insurance Group
Eli Lilly
Limited Brands
Lincoln National
Liz Claiborne
Lockheed Martin
Loews
Longs Drug Stores
Lowe's
That they will win that lawsuit with Uber...
The sad thing is that the judge realizes that each of these companies will try to get non-technical people to be jurors, throwing out anyone with a technical background. The judge even admonished the press to report on this.