Ok, well they are not the same. If you can't tell the difference more power to you.
Two things:
1. Most brands make a bunch of stuff and then put numerous labels on it - the same exact items, from the same production lines, just labeled differently. What each costs depends on which label is on it. The difference is their profit margin. The more brand recognition there is, the higher the cost and the higher the profit margin.
2. Even for the most costly brands, what doesn't sell at the main retailers is handed down to discount retailers and then later handed down to bargain outlets and thrift shops. Each sells the same exact item but at different price points. The main retailer may charge $50; the discount retailer $25 (50% off); the bargain outlet $12 (75% off); and the thrift store $5 (90% off). Again - it's the same exact item, even the same brand item (in contrast to #1 above).
Anyone that has had to spread out their money to make ends meet is aware of this.
Do you really think that Bakers Chocolate made one very good piece of chocolate and is still being paid for it?
In essence, yes. They created the recipe for the chocolate. But they were smart and did not release the recipe to the public like the foolish inventors, software devs, authors, musicians etc. No, they kept the recipe a secret and produced millions of chocolate bars (a simple process once you know the recipe) for hundreds of years. Trade secret protection is the best protection of IP and this example proves it.
Yes, they rely on Trade Secrets laws to keep the recipe safe. However, you can be sure they have many other products. One recipe wouldn't be enough to keep paying all their employees over all that time.
However, with the current unconstitutional laws in effect, you are rewarded for an absurdly long period, until long after you and probably your children are dead.
Part of the problem here is that copyrights are transferable and can be owned by corporations. The original copyright holder quickly loses his rights, if he even held them in the first place, and people with no affiliation whatsoever to the works or the artist gets to reap the benefits.
Make copyrights non-transferable from the actual creator(s), and only licensable for no longer than 5 years at a time.
If a corporation wants to continue using a creation, they need to continue to compensate the creator, until the work falls into public domain.
That wouldn't solve anything. Patents are already non-transferable; instead it's all bought and signed via payments and contracts. Inventors sign away everything to corporations and patent trolls.
well, then I will only be rewarded for a brief period.
No, you are supposed to be rewarded for a brief period. The US Constitution plainly states that; it's not just the article's author's opinion. The Constitution even points out that the *purpose* of depriving people of their natural rights to copy things they see for a limited period of time is to enhance the public domain.
However, with the current unconstitutional laws in effect, you are rewarded for an absurdly long period, until long after you and probably your children are dead. So you can stop your bitching and whining. You got what you wanted.
The *public* is suppose to be rewarded; the Constitution does not guarantee the owner of the copyright would ever be rewarded for their creations.
What impetus does Google have to prevent another copyright extension?
Google Books to name one. They've had a lot of run-ins with the Copyright lawsuits from various factions while trying to expand out the search business. Google News is another.
What for the same thing to happen: extend copyright, or never receive another penny of donations while we prop up those who campaign against you.
Oh no, Hollywood's going to drop all its support for Republicans! They're going to be quivering in their shoes over that, I'm sure!
More like they'll drop all support for Democrats, which would be a problem for them as Hillary Clinton seems to have left the core of the DNC bankrupt. 2018 will be an interesting election year as a result - DNC won't be able to help out so easily.
Yes, I suspect Disney, but aren't the characters created by Disney also trademarks of Disney, and thus still have protection even when copyright runs out? So you'd still be able to copy Sleeping Beauty, but you wouldn't be able to use Mickey Mouse as a character in your own video, nor would you be able to use "his" likeness in other products.
However, Trademarks do have limits. Specifically, trademarks are field of use limited, and can be revoked for numerous reasons - including becoming part of the common terminology - e.g Google may have trouble with further trademarking the term "google" b/c it has become a verb related to their business in the common vernacular of the public (f.e googling X, just google Y, just google it).
Copyrights are harder to lose; but also can be a bit harder to enforce.
It's more like spoken or written human languages to me:
You need to study, learn and practice before being proficient.
If you think that you need a fast solution, then the language you know the best is among the right solutions.
Assembly isn't more error prone than English.
It just depends whether you are or not an idiotic programmer or a easy-going speaker.
Correct. No one language over another is more prone to bugs; it's the maturity of the programmers writing the code. Mature programmers won't have memory issues in C, C++, etc; immature programmers will have all kinds of bugs in any language - even memory errors in Java.
Actually the biggest impediment I've found to merging recently is that most people no longer let you in when you signal. When I learned to drive back in the 1980s, you would signal, the person in the next lane behind you would usually slow down (or at least not speed up), and you would merge into their lane.
Merging means that YOU speed up to match or exceed the speed of traffic, not the other way around. It is the responsibility of the person doing the merging to get into traffic.
Agreed.
Nowadays, I signal and I'd estimate about 80% of the drivers use my signaling as an opportunity to speed up to prevent me from merging in front of them.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. You know the person is going to be merging into traffic with you, unless the entrance lane is an exit lane also and they think you're getting off immediately. If someone does not signal to get over, I assume they have no idea what is going on around them and do not make any effort to aid them in being an oblivious asshole. In fact, obliviousness is, in my experience, one of the most common causes for traffic to slow down. People don't anticipate the changes ahead of them and end up having to do emergency braking when no emergency condition existed. This, in turn, results in accidents. You ought to be picking a spot to merge into traffic the moment you get onto the on ramp.
Sadly I've seen too many times where people are quite a long ways back but don't want someone in front of them so even as they see someone coming in from a ramp - even without someone in other lanes they could move to - they increase their speed and race ahead to keep from having the person coming in merge in front of them. (Yeah, Pennsylvania Drivers!!! - I've seen it other places too, but very prevalent in PA.)
A slight slowdown to allow someone to merge in front of you is vastly preferable to the person having to slow down almost to a stop before he merges because his merge lane is ending and nobody is letting him merge. When he eventually merges at slow speed, he'll cause a massive backlog behind him compared to if someone had just let him merge at high speed.
You are completely wrong. Cars have this amazing thing called a gas pedal. Use it. If everyone slows down to let everyone else merge on, then you do end up with congestion. Now, I will concede that there are states (Connecticut, I am looking at you), where the on-ramps are not physically long enough to allow proper merging. In those cases, courtesy should be used. But in the event of a normal on-ramp, courtesy, common sense, and physics all dictate that the merger should actually use that handy little gas pedal of theirs. In normal road conditions, there is no reason, other than poor driving, that anyone should ever have trouble merging into traffic.
While I generally agree - it is the the responsibility of the person who is merging to match or exceed speed of existing traffic to perform the merge; but it is also the responsibility of those in the existing traffic to allow the merge to happen by not changing their speeds, etc and be courteous so that the merges happen properly.
that's why we have metered on-ramps. They limit the number of cars that have to weave into the traffic. And if traffic on the freeway starts to slow down, so should the metering rate until the bottleneck relieves itself.
Metered ramps are a crap and don't do anything.
Why?
B/c they either (a) push more traffic onto the side roads, and (b) just fill up anyway b/c the traffic ahead is stopped. Further, (c) they don't really solve the merge problem b/c people just run up to the end and merge but then they have no where to go.
Metered ramps work in *theory* but not in practice. It's one of those things where theory doesn't match reality.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Doesn't really matter. B/c if they intend to go to court over it, they'll get laughed at since it'll be essentially paid for in cash through the court via that route, and they won't be able to recover the court fees too, so they'll lose out there too.
At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.
It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.
Parent is correct. Why? B/c the Judge would just accept the cash, take out the fees for the court proceedings, and send any potential remainder in cash the business - effectively paying them in cash minus administrative fees. So the business would be stupid *not* to accept cash or clear the debt b/c it's just going to cost them more to recover via other means.
Only take credit/debit/check? Too bad. You won't get the luxury of extracting the bill and court fees b/c the court won't accept that as an argument since they'll get paid in cash by the court any way. So yes, they'll get laughed out of court if they try that line.
I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.
Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?
Customer Satisfaction will bring about repeat customers. Repeat customers tend to not only spend more, but also tend to provide free marketing and thereby bring in more customers (work of mouth, friends & family, etc). Thereby growing the profits more. Of course, customer satisfaction has to be done in a profitable manner; but a high customer satisfaction will also mean that folks can typically charge more.
For instance, Chik-fil-a has a higher cost than the vast majority of their competition. However, customer satisfaction is a high priority so customers are more than happy to pay the higher cost.
If you don't have good customer satisfaction then the first that that it impacts is your profit margins as your customers will not be willing to pay the higher cost (bigger margins) you want to charge.
it has been plugged into is trusted by the HDCP certification authority, and nothing more. It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage.
HDCP requires that the entire chain - from source through display device - support HDCP. Therefore by allowing it, one then ends up needing devices (e.g video sources, video cards, monitors, etc) that *all* support HDCP. If any one of those does not, then the video will be refused. Therefore "additional limitations on device usage" are imposed by definition.
So the generally accepted reading of that passage applies it to all children. Probably in part b/c most churches do not differentiate between those children that believe and those that do not; most do not know how to determine it reliably especially at younger ages. The greek word would apply to any child all the way up to about the age of 12.
Matthew (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A6-9&version=NIV) and Mark (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9%3A42-50&version=NIV) both provide the same reading; Luke (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A15-17&version=NIV) refers to it with less detail.
Supposedly Matthew 18:6 Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
That doesn't sound like a blanket ban. Pedophilia should still be okay as long as the victim isn't a believer.
and yet the text doesn't say that. The text doesn't refer to whether or not the victim "believes". It also isn't limited to pedophelia - murder, pedophelia, abuse, etc would all fall into the context of what was said, and the term used is a generic for all children.
Not that I'm aware...it did get bought by Verizon/Oath though, and from reading the article that is a lot of what has led to the current issues before the court - the new owners and Yahoo! were not honoring the contract themselves.
Me? I always change the setting from Yahoo! to Google anyway as I suspect most people using FIrefox do. So Mozilla finally reverting back to Google by default just makes life easier. And yes,I'd set IE and other browsers to use the Firefox Google page to try to help contribute to Mozilla at one time too:P
So they're comparing a Set-Top-Box which must be connected to a TV versus an Internet service deliverable via browser or mobile app...yeah, even if it's comparable movie catalogs it's still not the same thing.
People pirate movies to take them on-the-go - via computer or mobile - when traveling or out-and-about.
First, if you do buy a system try System76 or another Linux-oriented vendor/device. Install Ubuntu, turn on `ufw` and install `fail2ban` so that it's secure from the outside. Then give them a Steam account with Valve for gaming. The number of titles won't be as expansive as on Windows, but you'll (a) be more secure, and (b) save a butt load of money, and worse case you can install Windows in a VM (VMware, Virtualbox, etc) and run titles from there, via KVM hypervisor, or simply dual boot it.
Second, as far as Windows goes - you have to be extremely careful of which *version* of Windows you get. There's 10+ skews of Windows 10; not all are good for gaming. You'll probably need to the more expensive version ($200-$400 for the Windows license alone). Then see the rest of the comments here about securing the Windows system - though AV tends to get in the way of performance for gaming, and often you need an admin account b/c of the games doing special things with the hardware a normal user can't do...yeah. It sucks.
He can buy his own windows box with the money he makes working at his after-school job.
I don't have kids, but that seems inefficient, given that an adult earns several times more and has 4x more time available for working. That's like a marriage between a millionaire and an average joe where the millionaire demands the other guy contribute 50/50 to vacations.
Like a parent (usually) brings a kid along for vacations, some reasonable amount of entertainment is something a parent should also pay for. Perhaps offering a cheap laptop, or just giving the money to be put toward a better laptop? Or offering to match the kid's monetary contribution, up to the price of a computer that doesn't totally suck, which incidentally is the same price for Linux or Windows.
I bought my own computer with my own wages. The first was a gift - not from my parents - to both myself and my sibling; but the next I bought myself for about $3300 in total (1997). Still have it. Most don't spend that much on a system any more. My parent's policy was if we wanted stuff (cars, toys, etc) we generally had to buy them ourselves; birthday/Christmas we got a number of toys but not typically anything expensive (>$100 per item). It's a good policy.
And yes - the kid should contribute. Why? He'll treat it better. And yes, when the time is right my kids will have to do the same.
Golang has a lot to learn still. It has some nice things to it; but stability with dependencies you don't control is not one of them. It's a dependency management and stability hell as a result.
So yeah - if you're FB and rolling things out quickly, hourly, etc...then yeah Golang *might* make sense. But if you need any kind of long term stability, multi-language integration, etc- then Golang (and even Rust) is certainly not what you want to be using.
Well according to Wikipedia the Indian Ocean is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean) 70,560,000 km2 (27,240,000 sq mi) (approximately 20% of the water on the Earth's surface) - about 2 orders of magnitude higher than your calculation - which only gives 280,000 square miles.
Now figure you're looking for things that are more like 1 meter x 1 meter in size or smaller. Yeah - it's not going to be easy; you might be able to find large parts (tail section, wings, etc) but most things are going to be quite small - and nothing be 73 meters x 4 meters - which is also a far cry from the reported size of the 777-200ER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777) - which is 63 meters x 60 meters (to square it all off); even if we ignored the wings - the best is still 63 meters by 6 meters - though it'll no longer be 63 meters long; more like 3-6 meters wide by 1-10 meters length chunks.
All-in-all, it's like finding an exact grain of sand that was laser edged with an ID number dropped into Lake Superior.
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Explorer 13.00% Edge 3.78%
Wow...didn't know IE still had so much share and Edge hadn't taken it over yet.
Ok, well they are not the same. If you can't tell the difference more power to you.
Two things:
1. Most brands make a bunch of stuff and then put numerous labels on it - the same exact items, from the same production lines, just labeled differently. What each costs depends on which label is on it. The difference is their profit margin. The more brand recognition there is, the higher the cost and the higher the profit margin.
2. Even for the most costly brands, what doesn't sell at the main retailers is handed down to discount retailers and then later handed down to bargain outlets and thrift shops. Each sells the same exact item but at different price points. The main retailer may charge $50; the discount retailer $25 (50% off); the bargain outlet $12 (75% off); and the thrift store $5 (90% off). Again - it's the same exact item, even the same brand item (in contrast to #1 above).
Anyone that has had to spread out their money to make ends meet is aware of this.
Do you really think that Bakers Chocolate made one very good piece of chocolate and is still being paid for it?
In essence, yes. They created the recipe for the chocolate. But they were smart and did not release the recipe to the public like the foolish inventors, software devs, authors, musicians etc. No, they kept the recipe a secret and produced millions of chocolate bars (a simple process once you know the recipe) for hundreds of years. Trade secret protection is the best protection of IP and this example proves it.
Yes, they rely on Trade Secrets laws to keep the recipe safe. However, you can be sure they have many other products. One recipe wouldn't be enough to keep paying all their employees over all that time.
However, with the current unconstitutional laws in effect, you are rewarded for an absurdly long period, until long after you and probably your children are dead.
Part of the problem here is that copyrights are transferable and can be owned by corporations. The original copyright holder quickly loses his rights, if he even held them in the first place, and people with no affiliation whatsoever to the works or the artist gets to reap the benefits.
Make copyrights non-transferable from the actual creator(s), and only licensable for no longer than 5 years at a time. If a corporation wants to continue using a creation, they need to continue to compensate the creator, until the work falls into public domain.
That wouldn't solve anything. Patents are already non-transferable; instead it's all bought and signed via payments and contracts. Inventors sign away everything to corporations and patent trolls.
well, then I will only be rewarded for a brief period.
No, you are supposed to be rewarded for a brief period. The US Constitution plainly states that; it's not just the article's author's opinion. The Constitution even points out that the *purpose* of depriving people of their natural rights to copy things they see for a limited period of time is to enhance the public domain.
However, with the current unconstitutional laws in effect, you are rewarded for an absurdly long period, until long after you and probably your children are dead. So you can stop your bitching and whining. You got what you wanted.
The *public* is suppose to be rewarded; the Constitution does not guarantee the owner of the copyright would ever be rewarded for their creations.
What impetus does Google have to prevent another copyright extension?
Google Books to name one. They've had a lot of run-ins with the Copyright lawsuits from various factions while trying to expand out the search business. Google News is another.
What for the same thing to happen: extend copyright, or never receive another penny of donations while we prop up those who campaign against you.
Oh no, Hollywood's going to drop all its support for Republicans! They're going to be quivering in their shoes over that, I'm sure!
More like they'll drop all support for Democrats, which would be a problem for them as Hillary Clinton seems to have left the core of the DNC bankrupt. 2018 will be an interesting election year as a result - DNC won't be able to help out so easily.
Yes, I suspect Disney, but aren't the characters created by Disney also trademarks of Disney, and thus still have protection even when copyright runs out? So you'd still be able to copy Sleeping Beauty, but you wouldn't be able to use Mickey Mouse as a character in your own video, nor would you be able to use "his" likeness in other products.
However, Trademarks do have limits. Specifically, trademarks are field of use limited, and can be revoked for numerous reasons - including becoming part of the common terminology - e.g Google may have trouble with further trademarking the term "google" b/c it has become a verb related to their business in the common vernacular of the public (f.e googling X, just google Y, just google it).
Copyrights are harder to lose; but also can be a bit harder to enforce.
The base concept is bulls**it on its own.
It's more like spoken or written human languages to me: You need to study, learn and practice before being proficient.
If you think that you need a fast solution, then the language you know the best is among the right solutions. Assembly isn't more error prone than English. It just depends whether you are or not an idiotic programmer or a easy-going speaker.
Correct. No one language over another is more prone to bugs; it's the maturity of the programmers writing the code. Mature programmers won't have memory issues in C, C++, etc; immature programmers will have all kinds of bugs in any language - even memory errors in Java.
Actually the biggest impediment I've found to merging recently is that most people no longer let you in when you signal. When I learned to drive back in the 1980s, you would signal, the person in the next lane behind you would usually slow down (or at least not speed up), and you would merge into their lane.
Merging means that YOU speed up to match or exceed the speed of traffic, not the other way around. It is the responsibility of the person doing the merging to get into traffic.
Agreed.
Nowadays, I signal and I'd estimate about 80% of the drivers use my signaling as an opportunity to speed up to prevent me from merging in front of them.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. You know the person is going to be merging into traffic with you, unless the entrance lane is an exit lane also and they think you're getting off immediately. If someone does not signal to get over, I assume they have no idea what is going on around them and do not make any effort to aid them in being an oblivious asshole. In fact, obliviousness is, in my experience, one of the most common causes for traffic to slow down. People don't anticipate the changes ahead of them and end up having to do emergency braking when no emergency condition existed. This, in turn, results in accidents. You ought to be picking a spot to merge into traffic the moment you get onto the on ramp.
Sadly I've seen too many times where people are quite a long ways back but don't want someone in front of them so even as they see someone coming in from a ramp - even without someone in other lanes they could move to - they increase their speed and race ahead to keep from having the person coming in merge in front of them. (Yeah, Pennsylvania Drivers!!! - I've seen it other places too, but very prevalent in PA.)
A slight slowdown to allow someone to merge in front of you is vastly preferable to the person having to slow down almost to a stop before he merges because his merge lane is ending and nobody is letting him merge. When he eventually merges at slow speed, he'll cause a massive backlog behind him compared to if someone had just let him merge at high speed.
You are completely wrong. Cars have this amazing thing called a gas pedal. Use it. If everyone slows down to let everyone else merge on, then you do end up with congestion. Now, I will concede that there are states (Connecticut, I am looking at you), where the on-ramps are not physically long enough to allow proper merging. In those cases, courtesy should be used. But in the event of a normal on-ramp, courtesy, common sense, and physics all dictate that the merger should actually use that handy little gas pedal of theirs. In normal road conditions, there is no reason, other than poor driving, that anyone should ever have trouble merging into traffic.
While I generally agree - it is the the responsibility of the person who is merging to match or exceed speed of existing traffic to perform the merge; but it is also the responsibility of those in the existing traffic to allow the merge to happen by not changing their speeds, etc and be courteous so that the merges happen properly.
that's why we have metered on-ramps. They limit the number of cars that have to weave into the traffic. And if traffic on the freeway starts to slow down, so should the metering rate until the bottleneck relieves itself.
Metered ramps are a crap and don't do anything.
Why?
B/c they either (a) push more traffic onto the side roads, and (b) just fill up anyway b/c the traffic ahead is stopped. Further, (c) they don't really solve the merge problem b/c people just run up to the end and merge but then they have no where to go.
Metered ramps work in *theory* but not in practice. It's one of those things where theory doesn't match reality.
Except you don't know how the law works.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Doesn't really matter. B/c if they intend to go to court over it, they'll get laughed at since it'll be essentially paid for in cash through the court via that route, and they won't be able to recover the court fees too, so they'll lose out there too.
At most sit-down restaurants you eat before paying, thus incurring a debt. They are obligated to accept that legal tender if presented, because there is an existing debt.
It doesn't actually work that way. Restaurants are providing a service and as such are free to choose whether to accept cash or not as payment.
Parent is correct. Why? B/c the Judge would just accept the cash, take out the fees for the court proceedings, and send any potential remainder in cash the business - effectively paying them in cash minus administrative fees. So the business would be stupid *not* to accept cash or clear the debt b/c it's just going to cost them more to recover via other means.
Only take credit/debit/check? Too bad. You won't get the luxury of extracting the bill and court fees b/c the court won't accept that as an argument since they'll get paid in cash by the court any way. So yes, they'll get laughed out of court if they try that line.
I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.
Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?
Customer Satisfaction will bring about repeat customers. Repeat customers tend to not only spend more, but also tend to provide free marketing and thereby bring in more customers (work of mouth, friends & family, etc). Thereby growing the profits more. Of course, customer satisfaction has to be done in a profitable manner; but a high customer satisfaction will also mean that folks can typically charge more.
For instance, Chik-fil-a has a higher cost than the vast majority of their competition. However, customer satisfaction is a high priority so customers are more than happy to pay the higher cost.
If you don't have good customer satisfaction then the first that that it impacts is your profit margins as your customers will not be willing to pay the higher cost (bigger margins) you want to charge.
"Micro" means very small.
Not really...it's anything smaller than what we currently track - so it still could be a foot or so in size.
it has been plugged into is trusted by the HDCP certification authority, and nothing more. It does not reduce user freedom, or impose any additional limitations on device usage.
HDCP requires that the entire chain - from source through display device - support HDCP. Therefore by allowing it, one then ends up needing devices (e.g video sources, video cards, monitors, etc) that *all* support HDCP. If any one of those does not, then the video will be refused. Therefore "additional limitations on device usage" are imposed by definition.
So the generally accepted reading of that passage applies it to all children. Probably in part b/c most churches do not differentiate between those children that believe and those that do not; most do not know how to determine it reliably especially at younger ages. The greek word would apply to any child all the way up to about the age of 12.
Matthew (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+18%3A6-9&version=NIV) and Mark (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9%3A42-50&version=NIV) both provide the same reading; Luke (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A15-17&version=NIV) refers to it with less detail.
Supposedly Matthew 18:6 Matthew 18:6 6"If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
That doesn't sound like a blanket ban. Pedophilia should still be okay as long as the victim isn't a believer.
and yet the text doesn't say that. The text doesn't refer to whether or not the victim "believes". It also isn't limited to pedophelia - murder, pedophelia, abuse, etc would all fall into the context of what was said, and the term used is a generic for all children.
Didn't Yahoo go bankrupt by now?
Not that I'm aware...it did get bought by Verizon/Oath though, and from reading the article that is a lot of what has led to the current issues before the court - the new owners and Yahoo! were not honoring the contract themselves. Me? I always change the setting from Yahoo! to Google anyway as I suspect most people using FIrefox do. So Mozilla finally reverting back to Google by default just makes life easier. And yes,I'd set IE and other browsers to use the Firefox Google page to try to help contribute to Mozilla at one time too :P
So they're comparing a Set-Top-Box which must be connected to a TV versus an Internet service deliverable via browser or mobile app...yeah, even if it's comparable movie catalogs it's still not the same thing.
People pirate movies to take them on-the-go - via computer or mobile - when traveling or out-and-about.
Want a good study? Offer *identical* services.
as if Mozilla had the user's best interests in mind...Firefox Quantum (aka, Firefox 57), is the company's effort to correct its mistakes
And dropping XUL while not having an equivalent substitute in WebExtensions is doing that? Nope.
First, if you do buy a system try System76 or another Linux-oriented vendor/device. Install Ubuntu, turn on `ufw` and install `fail2ban` so that it's secure from the outside. Then give them a Steam account with Valve for gaming. The number of titles won't be as expansive as on Windows, but you'll (a) be more secure, and (b) save a butt load of money, and worse case you can install Windows in a VM (VMware, Virtualbox, etc) and run titles from there, via KVM hypervisor, or simply dual boot it.
Second, as far as Windows goes - you have to be extremely careful of which *version* of Windows you get. There's 10+ skews of Windows 10; not all are good for gaming. You'll probably need to the more expensive version ($200-$400 for the Windows license alone). Then see the rest of the comments here about securing the Windows system - though AV tends to get in the way of performance for gaming, and often you need an admin account b/c of the games doing special things with the hardware a normal user can't do...yeah. It sucks.
He can buy his own windows box with the money he makes working at his after-school job.
I don't have kids, but that seems inefficient, given that an adult earns several times more and has 4x more time available for working. That's like a marriage between a millionaire and an average joe where the millionaire demands the other guy contribute 50/50 to vacations.
Like a parent (usually) brings a kid along for vacations, some reasonable amount of entertainment is something a parent should also pay for. Perhaps offering a cheap laptop, or just giving the money to be put toward a better laptop? Or offering to match the kid's monetary contribution, up to the price of a computer that doesn't totally suck, which incidentally is the same price for Linux or Windows.
I bought my own computer with my own wages. The first was a gift - not from my parents - to both myself and my sibling; but the next I bought myself for about $3300 in total (1997). Still have it. Most don't spend that much on a system any more. My parent's policy was if we wanted stuff (cars, toys, etc) we generally had to buy them ourselves; birthday/Christmas we got a number of toys but not typically anything expensive (>$100 per item). It's a good policy.
And yes - the kid should contribute. Why? He'll treat it better. And yes, when the time is right my kids will have to do the same.
Golang has a lot to learn still. It has some nice things to it; but stability with dependencies you don't control is not one of them. It's a dependency management and stability hell as a result.
So yeah - if you're FB and rolling things out quickly, hourly, etc...then yeah Golang *might* make sense. But if you need any kind of long term stability, multi-language integration, etc- then Golang (and even Rust) is certainly not what you want to be using.
How big is the area? 400 x 700 square miles.
Well according to Wikipedia the Indian Ocean is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean) 70,560,000 km2 (27,240,000 sq mi) (approximately 20% of the water on the Earth's surface) - about 2 orders of magnitude higher than your calculation - which only gives 280,000 square miles.
Now figure you're looking for things that are more like 1 meter x 1 meter in size or smaller. Yeah - it's not going to be easy; you might be able to find large parts (tail section, wings, etc) but most things are going to be quite small - and nothing be 73 meters x 4 meters - which is also a far cry from the reported size of the 777-200ER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777) - which is 63 meters x 60 meters (to square it all off); even if we ignored the wings - the best is still 63 meters by 6 meters - though it'll no longer be 63 meters long; more like 3-6 meters wide by 1-10 meters length chunks.
All-in-all, it's like finding an exact grain of sand that was laser edged with an ID number dropped into Lake Superior.