I'm curious to know what their end-game is. Let's say that the E.U. let's them out of the Euro. What international investor is going to want to risk their money in the country particularly if the government is capable of confiscating other people's money? They've already defaulted on their debt to the IMF. Are they hoping that all of their creditors will decide to forget what they're owed? Even if they all did that, does the country have enough domestic wealth to run itself without outside help?
At what point does exercising one's right to free speech become vigilantism? IMHO, there's a lot of the latter going on these days. Say you don't like some business owner's view on a particular issue. Does that give you the right to destroy that person's career? Do they not have an equal right to free speech? Why is it okay to destroy that person's career through activism and social media when you can't do it through the law?
A) Those who earned their wealth through decades of hard work and ingenuity and B) those who got lucky and have money thrown at them often in very short periods of time. The former group are rightfully offended by those who say that they didn't earn it because those who say they didn't earn it are either members of group B, people who idolize members of group B, or people who want people who idolize members of group B to vote for them. The Group B and their acolytes have no understanding of what it takes to earn the money. They subconsciously know that they really earn their money but to make themselves feel better they have deluded themselves into believing that group A doesn't exist and their popularity allows to them to continue to delude themselves.
When some sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to fine me for flying my UAV that finds a missing child alive and well. "Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the child I just located. Now YOU explain to them why what I just did is a problem."
Or better yet, I can't wait for the day when said sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to stop me from using my UAV to locate a missing child. "Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the missing child. Now YOU explain to them why we can't use every method to locate their kid,"
Seriously, though. I wonder why they don't to the drone equivalent of radiologists Nighthawk service. Set up a control base in Australia and run ops there for half the day.
IMHO, this is indicative of what's really wrong with this country. It's not the mean, evil, greedy, CEOs. It's the musicians, actors, athletes, and people who are famous for being famous who have been deluding into thinking that everything they do is awesome and worthy of perpetual fees. It's gotten so bad that these people think that they're brilliant at everything when in reality they don't know anything. But legions of fans are so blinded by the star power that they are willing to believe everything that comes out of their mouths no matter how wrong or inane. Further, it's gotten to the point where ordinary people aspire to be famous far more than they do to be a physician or a scientist. The most dangerous aspect of all of this is that these people subconsciously know that famous people don't have to work hard for their money. It gets thrown at them. Therefore, they erroneously believe that nobody who has a lot of money earned it through hard work and ingenuity. Ultimately, the people who have money thrown at them have no appreciation for the money and the hard work it takes most people to earn it.
If you're proficient in an internal language, you're more likely to remain working there. Eventually, you'll be paid in Google bucks or Apple dollars, which are not legal tender anywhere else in the world.
A sign that reads, "This homeowner donates lots of money to charity." Would the criminals think "Oh, well, they're nice people so I won't rob them," or would they think, "Hey, where's my shorty, Morty? You gave money to everybody else, why not me too? You obviously have more than you need." Or would they simply think, "Eff you. I need to fence your crap so I can fuel my drug habits."
Double-blind studies are standard practice for studies. So why not do the same with funding? Donors to a university don't get to pick and choose which researcher or topic of research will get the money (but it has to be guaranteed to go to research and not into the general fund). The researchers' funding is allocated by some random method and they don't know in advance how much they will get if any nor do they know where the money came from.
Clearly, the cost of computing isn't in the chips or the PCB design. It's in the device enclosures. Tooling costs for nice enclosures are expensive even if you do have them made in China and 3D printing isn't quite mature enough to make short-run production-quality parts.
Seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this. Are you basing the evaluation on the finished application or on the quality of the source code/architecture? I've seen really dreadful source code that doesn't follow good standards an practices common in the industry yet has impressive results. I've also seen coding requirements be so complex as to hinder the development process.
From the wikipedia entry on the chemical: 2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives.
So, basically, this stuff can be found pretty much EVERYWHERE and pretty much everywhere in or around a home. But, nope, nope, nope, these samples HAD to come from fracking wells.
An ovum only starts to divide after it's been fertilized which would make it an embryo. If you're worried about pluralism, the correct term would be ova.
GAH!!! If you're going to talk about scientific things, please learn the correct terminology which would be ovum in this case. Life is tough enough without people constantly trying to invent words to make themselves sound important.
Slashdot Mirror
Or healthcare.gov?
I'm curious to know what their end-game is. Let's say that the E.U. let's them out of the Euro. What international investor is going to want to risk their money in the country particularly if the government is capable of confiscating other people's money? They've already defaulted on their debt to the IMF. Are they hoping that all of their creditors will decide to forget what they're owed? Even if they all did that, does the country have enough domestic wealth to run itself without outside help?
How the hell does Amazon walk away from this without a scratch? How are they not getting hammered for anti-trust?
No, because if it was then all government websites would require users to use Safari to access them. On OSX only, too.
At what point does exercising one's right to free speech become vigilantism? IMHO, there's a lot of the latter going on these days. Say you don't like some business owner's view on a particular issue. Does that give you the right to destroy that person's career? Do they not have an equal right to free speech? Why is it okay to destroy that person's career through activism and social media when you can't do it through the law?
Hee hee.
Why is the entire test in Java? Not Javascript but actual Java. I mean, at least it's not .NET or C# (aka, platform specific).
Maybe the researchers were smoking pot thus making them stupid and then got the munchies but to cover their asses they blamed the food.
A) Those who earned their wealth through decades of hard work and ingenuity and B) those who got lucky and have money thrown at them often in very short periods of time. The former group are rightfully offended by those who say that they didn't earn it because those who say they didn't earn it are either members of group B, people who idolize members of group B, or people who want people who idolize members of group B to vote for them. The Group B and their acolytes have no understanding of what it takes to earn the money. They subconsciously know that they really earn their money but to make themselves feel better they have deluded themselves into believing that group A doesn't exist and their popularity allows to them to continue to delude themselves.
Ms. Swift has a ticket for Ship B.
When some sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to fine me for flying my UAV that finds a missing child alive and well.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the child I just located. Now YOU explain to them why what I just did is a problem."
Or better yet, I can't wait for the day when said sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to stop me from using my UAV to locate a missing child.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the missing child. Now YOU explain to them why we can't use every method to locate their kid,"
Day ain't over yet.
Seriously, though. I wonder why they don't to the drone equivalent of radiologists Nighthawk service. Set up a control base in Australia and run ops there for half the day.
IMHO, this is indicative of what's really wrong with this country. It's not the mean, evil, greedy, CEOs. It's the musicians, actors, athletes, and people who are famous for being famous who have been deluding into thinking that everything they do is awesome and worthy of perpetual fees. It's gotten so bad that these people think that they're brilliant at everything when in reality they don't know anything. But legions of fans are so blinded by the star power that they are willing to believe everything that comes out of their mouths no matter how wrong or inane. Further, it's gotten to the point where ordinary people aspire to be famous far more than they do to be a physician or a scientist. The most dangerous aspect of all of this is that these people subconsciously know that famous people don't have to work hard for their money. It gets thrown at them. Therefore, they erroneously believe that nobody who has a lot of money earned it through hard work and ingenuity. Ultimately, the people who have money thrown at them have no appreciation for the money and the hard work it takes most people to earn it.
I'll bet they'd love to collect a fee when a song gets stuck in your head.
If you're proficient in an internal language, you're more likely to remain working there. Eventually, you'll be paid in Google bucks or Apple dollars, which are not legal tender anywhere else in the world.
We don't want you as our internet service provider. KTHXBYE.
A sign that reads, "This homeowner donates lots of money to charity."
Would the criminals think "Oh, well, they're nice people so I won't rob them," or would they think, "Hey, where's my shorty, Morty? You gave money to everybody else, why not me too? You obviously have more than you need."
Or would they simply think, "Eff you. I need to fence your crap so I can fuel my drug habits."
Double-blind studies are standard practice for studies. So why not do the same with funding? Donors to a university don't get to pick and choose which researcher or topic of research will get the money (but it has to be guaranteed to go to research and not into the general fund). The researchers' funding is allocated by some random method and they don't know in advance how much they will get if any nor do they know where the money came from.
Either it becomes more diverse or more narrow. For examples of the latter, I offer up dead heads.
Clearly, the cost of computing isn't in the chips or the PCB design. It's in the device enclosures. Tooling costs for nice enclosures are expensive even if you do have them made in China and 3D printing isn't quite mature enough to make short-run production-quality parts.
Cue the next massive-fail version of a government program.
Funding PRIVATE SCHOOLS!?!?! OMG, it's the end of the world as we know it! Surely, they know that not everyone can attend a PRIVATE school!
Seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this. Are you basing the evaluation on the finished application or on the quality of the source code/architecture? I've seen really dreadful source code that doesn't follow good standards an practices common in the industry yet has impressive results. I've also seen coding requirements be so complex as to hinder the development process.
From the wikipedia entry on the chemical:
2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives.
So, basically, this stuff can be found pretty much EVERYWHERE and pretty much everywhere in or around a home. But, nope, nope, nope, these samples HAD to come from fracking wells.
An ovum only starts to divide after it's been fertilized which would make it an embryo. If you're worried about pluralism, the correct term would be ova.
GAH!!! If you're going to talk about scientific things, please learn the correct terminology which would be ovum in this case. Life is tough enough without people constantly trying to invent words to make themselves sound important.