There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Citation needed. If it's the case that in general women prefer different things from their job from what men prefer (greater flexibility at the cost of higher pay, for example) then the centers would not be the same.
"Microsoft Windows" is. We shouldn't act as though the word "Windows" is owned by MS, even in a computing context. Windowed user interfaces using "windows" were around long before MS Windows.
"We are creating a mechanism to increase our funding ability from 10 trillion yen to 20 trillion yen to 100 trillion yen," Son told the outlet. That comes out to about $880 billion.
Sigh. This isn't sales tax. The customer has telecom service each year for seven years. Every year that he has telecom service, a tax must be paid. Google collected the tax up front as part of the $300 and pays it every year. They're already doing what you said they should do.
Your "second mistake" is THE mistake. That's what the whole article is all about. That's my point.
You've proven my point by contradiction. This purchase is exactly NOT like buying a refrigerator.
From the state's perspective, this is an annual service, with annual taxes due. As I said before, the single-fee-up-front thing is between Google and the customer, and is a creation of Google, which the state has nothing to do with.
Google charged ALL the sales taxes for the seven year period up front as part of the $300. But during that interval, taxes went up slightly. So from the state's perspective, somebody then owed slightly more than was already being paid.
I'm not saying Google couldn't have handled this better, but your "they simply should have done this" solution is totally wrong; it was already what they were doing.
The up-front deal is between Google and the customer. The taxes are due every year.
Google charged for the taxes, all of them, up-front. They were included in the $300. What happened was the taxes went up during the interval. That's what caused the problem.
Are we talking about web sites that use type="text" rather than type="password"? If so, then no, never ever ever is that appropriate for a password of any kind.
If we're talking about the UI of an app (either the browser or otherwise) giving the user an option for whether or not to mask, then that's a different discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Only AMD escaped? Only Intel is affected by Meltdown.
https://www.linuxjournal.com/c...
It doesn't. It can gracefully reload.
First, I think yes, it does. Otherwise it will be snooped or manipulated.
Second, they're just making it clearer when a site isn't https. Not saying every site needs to be secure.
There cannot be perfect equality, but when one aggregates a huge sample, the statistical centers for each gender group should be roughly the same, because with a large enough sample, individual deviations for things like actual hours worked and the strengths and weaknesses for particular work-related skills should even-out.
Citation needed. If it's the case that in general women prefer different things from their job from what men prefer (greater flexibility at the cost of higher pay, for example) then the centers would not be the same.
"Microsoft Windows" is. We shouldn't act as though the word "Windows" is owned by MS, even in a computing context. Windowed user interfaces using "windows" were around long before MS Windows.
They don't. Spectre is an industry-wide problem. The far more egregious Meltdown seems to be an Intel problem.
That's Spectre, not Meltdown. Meltdown is far more egregious, and carries the huge performance penalty.
You're right that AMD is unaffected (as unaffected as anything), but I don't think they can handle the volume. Not in the short term.
Most likely Intel's numbers will go up, at least in the short term, as people buy more CPUs to make up for the performance hit.
My understanding is that there's a boot-time kernel parameter you can set that will disable the fix.
1,073,741,824 is a much more even number than 1,000,000,000 is.
Why not just have everything off of dell.com? Wouldn't that make more sense AND be easier to manage?
From the fine summary:
"We are creating a mechanism to increase our funding ability from 10 trillion yen to 20 trillion yen to 100 trillion yen," Son told the outlet. That comes out to about $880 billion.
To what bank are you referring?
Think a little harder.
The MDN docs are some of the best around. It's surely one of Mozilla's most successful projects, and this will only make them more useful.
Sigh. This isn't sales tax. The customer has telecom service each year for seven years. Every year that he has telecom service, a tax must be paid. Google collected the tax up front as part of the $300 and pays it every year. They're already doing what you said they should do.
Your "second mistake" is THE mistake. That's what the whole article is all about. That's my point.
Totally agreed. I'm not saying Google was in the right. Just got caught up in a reading comprehension argument with an idiot.
You've proven my point by contradiction. This purchase is exactly NOT like buying a refrigerator.
From the state's perspective, this is an annual service, with annual taxes due. As I said before, the single-fee-up-front thing is between Google and the customer, and is a creation of Google, which the state has nothing to do with.
Google charged ALL the sales taxes for the seven year period up front as part of the $300. But during that interval, taxes went up slightly. So from the state's perspective, somebody then owed slightly more than was already being paid.
I'm not saying Google couldn't have handled this better, but your "they simply should have done this" solution is totally wrong; it was already what they were doing.
The up-front deal is between Google and the customer. The taxes are due every year.
Google charged for the taxes, all of them, up-front. They were included in the $300. What happened was the taxes went up during the interval. That's what caused the problem.
They did apply the tax up front. What happened was the tax changed during the seven years, going up very slightly.
I do believe there was an 80386 DX-40. Intel's topped out at 33MHz, but AMD had a 40MHz part. IIRC.
Are we talking about web sites that use type="text" rather than type="password"? If so, then no, never ever ever is that appropriate for a password of any kind.
If we're talking about the UI of an app (either the browser or otherwise) giving the user an option for whether or not to mask, then that's a different discussion.
Hardly improves security, though, does it?