Who the hell robs a gas station or liquor store anymore when you can sit at home and search for credit card numbers aqnd CVV2 codes with Google? Like credit card companies actually dedicate real time and effort investigating credit card theft? Please. They wipe your bill clean, issue a new credit card, and write off the loss, and the thief hardly lifted their hands off a keyboard.
Had to stop reading here as this paragraph indicates you're just spraying opinion about without actually being aware of facts. If you were to become aware of even the amount of losses caused by fraud you'd realize that ignoring the issue isn't even close to a viable option. And that's something you could find ith just a minute of quick searching. Imagine how much you could improve your knowledge and postings if you actually made the effort to understand the subjects you speak about.
Define 'standard' - because in this case you seem to be referring to HTML5 "maybe will be standard one day" components. Many of which are implemented using different browser-specific keywords, especially in the CSS space.
Google uses web standards that have been implemented in Chrome.
Ummm..... partially true. Google does use web standards, but also adapts chrome-specific extensions based on web standards that will probably (but not definitely) be approved. If you write CSS for Chrome, it will not work for other browsers unless you include each browser's own customized version of the same thing.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously, I chuckled. When Firefox implements forced, rapid-iteration upgrades your response is to... erm... switch to a browser that has a policy of forced, rapid-iteration upgrades?
I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. Certainly not from my Python remarks -- c++ syntax doesn't even vaguely resemble Python. Care to elaborate? Or just trolling?
Know what would make me move? A syntax identical to the Python 2-series that compiled down to machine efficiencies similar to c. Now that's a beautiful syntax, a real step in the right direction.
True, but some are more predictable than others. The same actuarial tables that drive insurance premiums today can be used. There's a chance of needing a knee replacement when you're running, true -- but the over health gain of someone who stays in shape by running will typically outweigh the relatively minor cost of a single surgery and a few months of therapy.
I honestly no longer know if I'm a proponent or opponent of such a system. I used to be opposed to universal healthcare overall, but stories like this really make me think. When our country was founded... medical care wasn't a consideration. Some things were cureable, but most were not. Doctors did what they could - and if you couldn't pay, many of them would still do it anyway; or would do it on barter. This situation simply doesn't exist today - the small-town relationships that made it possible are now much reduced. (Ironic since there are so many more people...) Even in situations where it might exist, fear of law suits quashes it even further.
On the other hand, people who engage knowingly in risky behavior (smoking, obesity that does not have medical cause, driving without seat belts/helmets/etc) are now actively harming their community if they expect and receive the same care as those who do not. A lot of tough questions here.
It's easy to say "Well if you can't afford health care, die". But how do you reconcile that with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? As I get older - and even though I can well afford my family's health care needs - I find myself considering variations on this question more and more.
After severing a tendon in my finger, I had it restored by a plastic surgeon and enjoy full functionality of that digit today. The history of plastic (eg restorative) surgery extends far beyond the cosmetic surgeries of today. That's far more of an ending than a beginning.
p.
My point is that you should probably take ten minutes and educate yourself (it's really easy these days) before you post and make yourself look like a fool.
Now that being said - I can understanding why we don't have as many any more. Everyday life is filled with bad endings, bad choices, missed opportunities. Movies are an escape for a reason.
Personally I like a mix. Game of Thrones is great for the reasons you describe; but I liked Thor's ending as well. The important part of Thor was that he didn't *know* his sacrifice wasn't permanent when he made it. The later impermanence of it is largely irrelevant to the story.
Where's the connection between TFA and the summary?
TFS
"You might think that the executive team that engineered a lucrative buyout for their company would be rewarded. But eight execs from Skype instead found themselves fired just before their company was formally taken over by Microsoft. It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond; rather, the private equity firm that owns a 70 percent stake in Skype wanted to cut back on the payout to company execs that would normally accompany this kind of transaction."
Damn, that's sneaky. Except wait - here are the eight execs:
The departures included David Gurle, vice president and general manager for Skype for Business; Don Albert, vice president and general manager for the Americas and Advertising; Doug Bewsher, chief marketing officer; Christopher Dean, head of consumer market business development; Russ Shaw, vice president and general manager; and Anne Gillespie, head of human resources.
Two executives who joined Skype following its acquisition earlier this year of video-sharing utility Qik have also left. They are Qik founder Ramu Sunkara and senior vice president Allyson Campa.
Sooo... on what basis do we conclude that these eight execs engineered the deal? Let's also not forget that these were released in the months leading up to the buyout - it's not like on the eve of the approval they were all fired. I could also make a point of saying we don't *know* that they were fired - as TFA doesn't specify it - but the timing *does*seems awfully convenient if they all decided to quit. )
Considering that there is no specific definition of capitalism; and that the American economy has to greater or less extent all of the agreed-upon components of capitalism... that's a rather sweeping statement you've made there. You've implied that government protection of intellectual property is fundamentally incompatible with a capitalist economic system, but haven't provided anything that proves it.
I love my red meat very much, thank you, but I prefer to see it tenderized after death. What kind of sick fucks will beat cows to deqth, and what would prompt them to do it in the first place?
Sorry. I've become better about controlling the Grammar Nazi within in recent years, but sometimes he still escapes my grasp and tries to wreak havoc on my karma.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the hell robs a gas station or liquor store anymore when you can sit at home and search for credit card numbers aqnd CVV2 codes with Google? Like credit card companies actually dedicate real time and effort investigating credit card theft? Please. They wipe your bill clean, issue a new credit card, and write off the loss, and the thief hardly lifted their hands off a keyboard.
Had to stop reading here as this paragraph indicates you're just spraying opinion about without actually being aware of facts. If you were to become aware of even the amount of losses caused by fraud you'd realize that ignoring the issue isn't even close to a viable option. And that's something you could find ith just a minute of quick searching. Imagine how much you could improve your knowledge and postings if you actually made the effort to understand the subjects you speak about.
Define 'standard' - because in this case you seem to be referring to HTML5 "maybe will be standard one day" components. Many of which are implemented using different browser-specific keywords, especially in the CSS space.
Google uses web standards that have been implemented in Chrome.
Ummm..... partially true. Google does use web standards, but also adapts chrome-specific extensions based on web standards that will probably (but not definitely) be approved. If you write CSS for Chrome, it will not work for other browsers unless you include each browser's own customized version of the same thing.
FWIW I agree. I switched to Chrome.
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously, I chuckled. When Firefox implements forced, rapid-iteration upgrades your response is to... erm... switch to a browser that has a policy of forced, rapid-iteration upgrades?
However, it looks like Mozilla failed to communicate it well enough, thinking their own notice was enough.
Um, how much more notice should they provide? An ad in the Times?
When you lower the barriers of entry sufficiently, you reap the rewards. All of the rewards. Not really news.
It's not the fact that the article was submitted that bugs me - it's that this "article" made it to the front page.
To be fair the summary is poorly written; the initial description implied that it could be used exactly as GP thought it was intended.
I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. Certainly not from my Python remarks -- c++ syntax doesn't even vaguely resemble Python. Care to elaborate? Or just trolling?
Know what would make me move? A syntax identical to the Python 2-series that compiled down to machine efficiencies similar to c. Now that's a beautiful syntax, a real step in the right direction.
So to paraphrase, you'd use c++ if it were not c++?
WTF slashdot? We get a link to a computerworld writeup about the new release, instead of the release notes and download link?
True, but some are more predictable than others. The same actuarial tables that drive insurance premiums today can be used. There's a chance of needing a knee replacement when you're running, true -- but the over health gain of someone who stays in shape by running will typically outweigh the relatively minor cost of a single surgery and a few months of therapy.
I honestly no longer know if I'm a proponent or opponent of such a system. I used to be opposed to universal healthcare overall, but stories like this really make me think. When our country was founded... medical care wasn't a consideration. Some things were cureable, but most were not. Doctors did what they could - and if you couldn't pay, many of them would still do it anyway; or would do it on barter. This situation simply doesn't exist today - the small-town relationships that made it possible are now much reduced. (Ironic since there are so many more people...) Even in situations where it might exist, fear of law suits quashes it even further.
On the other hand, people who engage knowingly in risky behavior (smoking, obesity that does not have medical cause, driving without seat belts/helmets/etc) are now actively harming their community if they expect and receive the same care as those who do not. A lot of tough questions here.
It's easy to say "Well if you can't afford health care, die". But how do you reconcile that with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? As I get older - and even though I can well afford my family's health care needs - I find myself considering variations on this question more and more.
After severing a tendon in my finger, I had it restored by a plastic surgeon and enjoy full functionality of that digit today. The history of plastic (eg restorative) surgery extends far beyond the cosmetic surgeries of today. That's far more of an ending than a beginning. p. My point is that you should probably take ten minutes and educate yourself (it's really easy these days) before you post and make yourself look like a fool.
You confuse television doctors with reality.
Sounds like like your practice must have the best prices in town, where can I find it?
Now that being said - I can understanding why we don't have as many any more. Everyday life is filled with bad endings, bad choices, missed opportunities. Movies are an escape for a reason.
Personally I like a mix. Game of Thrones is great for the reasons you describe; but I liked Thor's ending as well. The important part of Thor was that he didn't *know* his sacrifice wasn't permanent when he made it. The later impermanence of it is largely irrelevant to the story.
"You might think that the executive team that engineered a lucrative buyout for their company would be rewarded. But eight execs from Skype instead found themselves fired just before their company was formally taken over by Microsoft. It appears that this move isn't meddling from Redmond; rather, the private equity firm that owns a 70 percent stake in Skype wanted to cut back on the payout to company execs that would normally accompany this kind of transaction."
Damn, that's sneaky. Except wait - here are the eight execs:
The departures included David Gurle, vice president and general manager for Skype for Business; Don Albert, vice president and general manager for the Americas and Advertising; Doug Bewsher, chief marketing officer; Christopher Dean, head of consumer market business development; Russ Shaw, vice president and general manager; and Anne Gillespie, head of human resources. Two executives who joined Skype following its acquisition earlier this year of video-sharing utility Qik have also left. They are Qik founder Ramu Sunkara and senior vice president Allyson Campa.
Sooo... on what basis do we conclude that these eight execs engineered the deal? Let's also not forget that these were released in the months leading up to the buyout - it's not like on the eve of the approval they were all fired. I could also make a point of saying we don't *know* that they were fired - as TFA doesn't specify it - but the timing *does*seems awfully convenient if they all decided to quit. )
Considering that there is no specific definition of capitalism; and that the American economy has to greater or less extent all of the agreed-upon components of capitalism... that's a rather sweeping statement you've made there. You've implied that government protection of intellectual property is fundamentally incompatible with a capitalist economic system, but haven't provided anything that proves it.
What's next? Violence? And a 'discussion' between armies?
I'm so glad to see that a lack of knowledge does not hold the world back from taking violent action
You've made what's next painfully clear - deeply flawed use of slippery slope arguments, along with a generous helping of hyperbole ;)
Always do the opposite of a conservative, especially the "freedom-loving" libertarian types.
Also always bypass the opinions of someone who likes to over-generalize to the point of ridiculousness. Oh, wait... erm, I meant "almost always"...
Why is it you're trying to introduce a false dichotomy into the discussion? The bill in question is specifically for patents.
I've stored two hundred Kindles in a hermetically sealed vault.
I love my red meat very much, thank you, but I prefer to see it tenderized after death. What kind of sick fucks will beat cows to deqth, and what would prompt them to do it in the first place?
Sorry. I've become better about controlling the Grammar Nazi within in recent years, but sometimes he still escapes my grasp and tries to wreak havoc on my karma.