It is gratifying for Google to be so open about the fact that it is a bug, the details of the bug, and a promise to fix it. Most consumer electronics companies are much more cagey about this sort of thing. I suspect Google will win some important trust because they are treating their customers like adults.
A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...
Let's get right to the bottom line: should same sex couples have the right to adopt and raise children? I am an enthusiastic thumbs up. The nicest kids I know from my kids school come from a couple of 2 mommy families. I'm much happier having my son influenced by those kids than by children from homes where the parent(s) are not really actively parenting.
You analogy is feeble. Net nuetrality will ensure a highly competitive environment. When one provider abuses its customers, those customers will jump to a better option.
Imagine a world where anything you could possibly want to watch is available from the internet instantly for a flat rate all you can eat cheap price. That's where we are headed. In that world, why bother maintaining enough expensive disk space (with backups) for a video format that will be obsolete 6 months after you download it?
There are so many great opportunities out there for making a legitimate living programming that it makes me wonder why these guys volunteered to spend the best years of their lives stealing from people.
If you don't like the termination fee then you should simply use a competing service. Your choice to use Verizon is voluntary. Eventually the market will dictate what Verizon can charge.
Seriously. Use AWS for your custom apps. Outsource your email and other G&A aspects of running your company. Data centers are for dinosaurs. All of the cool kids are in the cloud.
The fundamental problem with ERP systems is that they are integrated and implemented by the second tier of folks in the engineering pecking order. Couple that fact with an aggressive sales force that would sell ice to eskimos and you've got a straight road to expensive failure.
I agree that open government docs should stay away from Flash. I don't agree that Flash is an abomination because Adobe does not bother with less popular OSes. Why should they implement Flash on less popular OSes? That costs Adobe real money and then only a handful of users would benefit. If you were in charge of the engineering budget at Adobe, would you spend $ on a feature for Mac and Windows that 100 million people would use or would you use that same $ to port Flash to a less popular OS with 10,000 users?
The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines. The fault for why this did not happen lies within America. You want the USA to 'control' the technology? Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage.
I personally don't have a problem with where the turbines come from. Borders don't mean a whole lot to me and cheap, clean energy is social justice.
This is another example of why impartial and fair justice is really only available to the rich. A rich defendant could afford to pay his high powered defense attorney team to scrutinize this level of detail. This is not happening for poor defendants who are forced to settle for noble, but overworked, public defenders.
It will take a lot more than a crazy Aunt and Uncle here an there to make Disney's investment worth it. This has to catch on for millions of average consumers. It will not, because it is too damned confusing for most people to even understand.
I see, so if something has been true since the dawn of time then we should not change it.
Let's apply that reasoning to other recent history societal changes. How about slavery? In 1860 I could say the same thing. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time. Why should it change now?
To bring this more on-topic: if I were a JotP, I would refuse to perform marriages for gay couples. I don't believe the State need recognize any rights for a union that cannot create a biological family, even in theory. (I know that not all heterosexual couples can or even want to have children, but the law is not about individual cases.)
Dog-Cow, how do you feel about adoption? It is most widely practiced from within unions 'that cannot create a biological family'. That should be banned. Right? Since it is all about biological families? My adopted kids feel warm and safe with you making the rules.
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.
Slashdot Mirror
New Orleans is heavily Catholic and God could have steered Katrina away. As God's representative on earth, we should sue Pope Benedict.
It is gratifying for Google to be so open about the fact that it is a bug, the details of the bug, and a promise to fix it. Most consumer electronics companies are much more cagey about this sort of thing. I suspect Google will win some important trust because they are treating their customers like adults.
A male role-model perhaps? Psychologically important for both males and females. Basic psychology here...
Let's get right to the bottom line: should same sex couples have the right to adopt and raise children? I am an enthusiastic thumbs up. The nicest kids I know from my kids school come from a couple of 2 mommy families. I'm much happier having my son influenced by those kids than by children from homes where the parent(s) are not really actively parenting.
You are wrong. Net nuetrality lowers the barrier to entry. Abuse your customers and a competitor will be there to take them away.
You analogy is feeble. Net nuetrality will ensure a highly competitive environment. When one provider abuses its customers, those customers will jump to a better option.
Why do you want to?
Imagine a world where anything you could possibly want to watch is available from the internet instantly for a flat rate all you can eat cheap price. That's where we are headed. In that world, why bother maintaining enough expensive disk space (with backups) for a video format that will be obsolete 6 months after you download it?
There are so many great opportunities out there for making a legitimate living programming that it makes me wonder why these guys volunteered to spend the best years of their lives stealing from people.
If you don't like the termination fee then you should simply use a competing service. Your choice to use Verizon is voluntary. Eventually the market will dictate what Verizon can charge.
Seriously. Use AWS for your custom apps. Outsource your email and other G&A aspects of running your company. Data centers are for dinosaurs. All of the cool kids are in the cloud.
The fundamental problem with ERP systems is that they are integrated and implemented by the second tier of folks in the engineering pecking order. Couple that fact with an aggressive sales force that would sell ice to eskimos and you've got a straight road to expensive failure.
Why, as you say, is it good business for Adobe to port it to every single OS, even those with only a handful of users?
I agree that open government docs should stay away from Flash. I don't agree that Flash is an abomination because Adobe does not bother with less popular OSes. Why should they implement Flash on less popular OSes? That costs Adobe real money and then only a handful of users would benefit. If you were in charge of the engineering budget at Adobe, would you spend $ on a feature for Mac and Windows that 100 million people would use or would you use that same $ to port Flash to a less popular OS with 10,000 users?
Purchasing version 1.0 of anything is always an act of vanity rather than practicality.
Examples include:
Cars (Tesla?)
Phones, including Droid
Operating Systems
Girl friends
etc, etc.
The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines. The fault for why this did not happen lies within America. You want the USA to 'control' the technology? Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage.
I personally don't have a problem with where the turbines come from. Borders don't mean a whole lot to me and cheap, clean energy is social justice.
This is another example of why impartial and fair justice is really only available to the rich. A rich defendant could afford to pay his high powered defense attorney team to scrutinize this level of detail. This is not happening for poor defendants who are forced to settle for noble, but overworked, public defenders.
Do you wish that your daughter's company would pay for lap dances for the male employees?
How is this related to marriage between two consenting adults?
It will take a lot more than a crazy Aunt and Uncle here an there to make Disney's investment worth it. This has to catch on for millions of average consumers. It will not, because it is too damned confusing for most people to even understand.
So slavery in bondage, like slaves on a tobacco plantation in Virginia in 1860, is the same as a dude who chases women today?
Didn't the team that falsified the info about 114 and 116 come from Lawrence Livermoore
What is the chain of thought that leads researchers to that level of fraud? Eventual exposure and disgrace is always the most likely outcome.
Mr. President, we cannot allow an Element 114 gap!
I see, so if something has been true since the dawn of time then we should not change it.
Let's apply that reasoning to other recent history societal changes. How about slavery? In 1860 I could say the same thing. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time. Why should it change now?
ImYourVirus is for slavery.
Why would 'anyone with sense' deny the right of marriage to a gay couple?
To bring this more on-topic: if I were a JotP, I would refuse to perform marriages for gay couples. I don't believe the State need recognize any rights for a union that cannot create a biological family, even in theory. (I know that not all heterosexual couples can or even want to have children, but the law is not about individual cases.)
Dog-Cow, how do you feel about adoption? It is most widely practiced from within unions 'that cannot create a biological family'. That should be banned. Right? Since it is all about biological families? My adopted kids feel warm and safe with you making the rules.
Marriage is between a man and woman.... anything else can NEVER be called marriage... Period...
Why can't we call it marriage? I do and 48% of Californians agree with me. Ask us again in 2010 and it will be 49%. Ask us in 2012 and it will be 50.1%. Inevitably, Gay Marriage will be recognized as a right and our grandchildren will be shaking their heads that this was really ever a debate.