I think it is safe to assume that they purposely bricked the rover (or test rover) before the mission. And made sure it played out as the GP stated. And that they did this many different ways.
Non programmers need to understand that the language isn't the problem. Certain autistic persons have issues formulating sentences to communicate properly to those that are well versed in communication. It doesn't matter if they learn 10 languages, if they can't convey their thoughts in one language, they aren't going to do it in another language.
Likewise, with programming, if you can't speak the language of logic, then you can't program. If you can't have the forethought to see holes in logic, then you can't program. Sure, you can write up some stuff that works. But it still isn't coherent in the grand scheme of things. The government, Universities, and corporate management seem to be stuck thinking that we just need more people that know certain programming languages.
When will they learn that programming is a shift in the thought process that a large segment of our population just can't make? Or they won't make unless we start teaching people to be logical and non-ambiguous in life...
Have someone from 1900 tell you the difference. They will be so shocked at all the similarities that the difference will be considered minute and one would be considered a copy of the other.
I agree that it isn't suitable for free-markets. But prisons (private or not) don't exist in markets, let alone free markets.
A prison exists within a monopoly. There is only one payer...the government. You cannot price the service appropriately in this context. If you price it too low, then it goes out of business. Therefore it must be priced too high.
That's weird. It is the complete opposite in the US. It is illegal for the government to snoop, but companies can track any information they want as long as they don't violate private property rights.
And I trust companies more than the State. The State can invade my privacy by force. The corporation requires me to divulge it voluntarily.
I hate when people put "private" in front of prison in this context. Like public prisons aren't in the same boat. Just say "special interests". Instead you choose to make an apparent attack on capitalism, when it is really about big government and crony capitalism.
The GGP is advocating giving the driver proper punishment. If he causes an accident that results in a death, then life in prison. Paralysis? 10 years in prison and monthly payments to the paralyzed individuals. That can be quite a deterent.
Punish the crime. Preventative laws make things too complicated.
I don't understand the Republican opposition to cap & trade, no principal. Maybe they have issues with something around the implementation. Friedman would even agree with the principal. It is the most practical way to realize the external costs. My question is around the controls on setting the cap? What is to stop someone from contracting it?
I don't see how "Metro" would be violation of trademark. If Metro AG is a retail store, then they are fundamentally different than a software company. Either Microsoft never considered using "Metro" to describe their UI (unsurprisingly this story is made up) or Metro AG does something in software.
I can start a company that installs windows on homes and call it Windows. The names just have to no be in the same industry.
How would one do that? And before you say "you can't have two bullet points in one bill", what about bills that provide a service and a tax to pay for it. Should they be separate? Should there be a vote on each service individually?
The easiest way to make lobbying completely ineffective is to get rid of representatives. They wouldn't have anyone in particular to lobby. So they would have to convince the general public of their idea. How novel!
You may be thinking, "how do we get rid of representatives?" I don't know exactly, but I would think if we used some math, statistics, and technology, we can have the people acting as the legislature. At least some anonymous or random representation.
They can create this law, but they won't create a law to prevent your employer from asking for your bank and investment accounts (SEC regulation). The Federal government will usurp this law under the guise of terrorism prevention.
This doesn't make sense at all. They can't ask for credentials? So they will ask to be "friended" or "circled" just to get an interview. Sucks for me, since I don't have a Facebook account and will be excluded as if I am hiding something...
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is safe to assume that they purposely bricked the rover (or test rover) before the mission. And made sure it played out as the GP stated. And that they did this many different ways.
Here is a case:
Janet Jackson was televised by exclusive license holder, CBS, but the NFL owns the broadcast. CBS was sued.
If the answers are definitive, then they don't need to be cleartext.
Non programmers need to understand that the language isn't the problem. Certain autistic persons have issues formulating sentences to communicate properly to those that are well versed in communication. It doesn't matter if they learn 10 languages, if they can't convey their thoughts in one language, they aren't going to do it in another language.
Likewise, with programming, if you can't speak the language of logic, then you can't program. If you can't have the forethought to see holes in logic, then you can't program. Sure, you can write up some stuff that works. But it still isn't coherent in the grand scheme of things. The government, Universities, and corporate management seem to be stuck thinking that we just need more people that know certain programming languages.
When will they learn that programming is a shift in the thought process that a large segment of our population just can't make? Or they won't make unless we start teaching people to be logical and non-ambiguous in life...
Have someone from 1900 tell you the difference. They will be so shocked at all the similarities that the difference will be considered minute and one would be considered a copy of the other.
I agree that it isn't suitable for free-markets. But prisons (private or not) don't exist in markets, let alone free markets.
A prison exists within a monopoly. There is only one payer...the government. You cannot price the service appropriately in this context. If you price it too low, then it goes out of business. Therefore it must be priced too high.
What if DoubleClick/AdSense sites require it. That would shut down a significant portion of the web.
That's weird. It is the complete opposite in the US. It is illegal for the government to snoop, but companies can track any information they want as long as they don't violate private property rights.
And I trust companies more than the State. The State can invade my privacy by force. The corporation requires me to divulge it voluntarily.
Or hire a firm in China that will clone him and ship his clone to America. The clone will be from the south though...
I hate when people put "private" in front of prison in this context. Like public prisons aren't in the same boat. Just say "special interests". Instead you choose to make an apparent attack on capitalism, when it is really about big government and crony capitalism.
The GGP is advocating giving the driver proper punishment. If he causes an accident that results in a death, then life in prison. Paralysis? 10 years in prison and monthly payments to the paralyzed individuals. That can be quite a deterent.
Punish the crime. Preventative laws make things too complicated.
I don't understand the Republican opposition to cap & trade, no principal. Maybe they have issues with something around the implementation. Friedman would even agree with the principal. It is the most practical way to realize the external costs. My question is around the controls on setting the cap? What is to stop someone from contracting it?
That's not fraud. That is lobbying. It is better to lobby the citizens than to lobby the representative.
I don't see how "Metro" would be violation of trademark. If Metro AG is a retail store, then they are fundamentally different than a software company. Either Microsoft never considered using "Metro" to describe their UI (unsurprisingly this story is made up) or Metro AG does something in software.
I can start a company that installs windows on homes and call it Windows. The names just have to no be in the same industry.
How would one do that? And before you say "you can't have two bullet points in one bill", what about bills that provide a service and a tax to pay for it. Should they be separate? Should there be a vote on each service individually?
The easiest way to make lobbying completely ineffective is to get rid of representatives. They wouldn't have anyone in particular to lobby. So they would have to convince the general public of their idea. How novel!
You may be thinking, "how do we get rid of representatives?" I don't know exactly, but I would think if we used some math, statistics, and technology, we can have the people acting as the legislature. At least some anonymous or random representation.
The justification was read as a threat to national security and was confiscated. The courier was sent to Guantanamo. No trial is expected.
They can create this law, but they won't create a law to prevent your employer from asking for your bank and investment accounts (SEC regulation). The Federal government will usurp this law under the guise of terrorism prevention.
I already patented suing everyone.
This doesn't make sense at all. They can't ask for credentials? So they will ask to be "friended" or "circled" just to get an interview. Sucks for me, since I don't have a Facebook account and will be excluded as if I am hiding something...
You should have paid $501...
Anonymity
Not sure if this is still the case, but it did/does one heck of a job keeping you anonymous.
That is part of the content. Changing the writing before it changes the content. If you don't change the writing, just change the order of the photos.
But I don't think it would cost $1b per dinosaur. Most of that investment can be used to keep cloning.
Exactly. Who knows? So present it as evidence and let Apple try and prove that Samsung had those leaks. They are the ones with the burden of proof.