Chrome can open MHTML files, Firefox used to (with an add-on) but not anymore, and there are free viewers available. All one has to do is to set the association of.MHT files to another program.
They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.
Not really 50%, just at least 3 women if the number of board members is 6 or more, 2 if the number is 5, and 1 otherwise.
Other than that, I find two loopholes in the bill large enough to drive a medium-sized planet through:
Regarding violations and penalties: 301.3.(e)(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation. 301.3.(f)(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
So for one day a year (I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony), the chairman of the board should come to work in drag.
Besides, everyone should learn how to code, learn how to file their taxes, learn to cook, learn CPR...
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." — Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Or you could, you know, raise your children to not murder people, so they don't need privacy from homicide detectives. Just sayin.
Homicide detective's #1 priority is to close cases. It does not matter if they get the actual murderer as long as they can build a strong case against a person -- any person. So if your DNA is found on the scene of the crime (and you leave traces of you DNA whenever you go) and you don't happen to have an ironclad alibi, well then my friend, it sucks to be you.
How did that got upvoted to +5 when the answer is right there in TFA:
A WhatsApp spokesperson tells me that it scans all unencrypted information on its network — basically anything outside of chat threads themselves — including user profile photos, group profile photos and group information.
I use FireFox, both mobile and desktop, and google docs and spreadsheets work fine for me. Haven't tried Slides recently but it worked fine the last time I did.
Open Google's image search in mobile Firefox. Then do it in mobile Chrome. See the difference in functionality? Now change Firefox's user agent to masquerade as Chrome. Suddenly the full functionality is back.
Google already downgrades search functionality for firefox mobile. Once I changed the user agent to chrome, all the missing features suddenly appeared and were working with no issues.
Make no mistake, Google is just as evil as Microsoft was in its day.
OK, first, I apologize for implying that all atheists are cocky. Here on slashdot, you can probably see how I got that impression.
Slashdot is not a representative of the broad population, and I would respectfully submit that your impressions are based on just a tiny vocal minority of users. Most people that I came in contact with, believers and unbelievers alike, keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves unless asked.
The term "atheist" is universally used to describe a person who claims that god does not exist
No it isn't.
Quoting Wikipedia: Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Claiming that the narrowest definition is "universal" is at best incorrect.
not a person who answers "I don't know" or refuses to answer the question. Those people are universally known as agnostics, not atheists,
Gnosis refers to knowledge, not belief. The terms are orthogonal, in the sense that both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article I linked to above, it is quite an interesting summary and will help you understand people that categorize themselves as atheists while not falling under your chosen definition of the word.
But let me show you that it also works without allowing a "null" answer. You just need to ask two seperate questions.
Take the question, "Do you believe that god exists?". A true theist would have to answer "yes". A true atheist would have to answer "no".
What would a True Scotsman(TM) answer?
What does an agnostic answer? "I don't know", of course.
Wrong.
An agnostic may answer either "yes" or "no". They will answer "I don't know" when asked "does god exist?" which is an entirely different question.
If you can pose the question "Do you believe that god exists?" as a boolean, then I can negate the question and pose it as a boolean too: "Do you believe that god does not exist?"
Belief is not a boolean proposition and therefore your question is invalid. A valid question would be "how strongly do you believe that god exists?" If you go outside and ask a hundred random people that question, I doubt you'll get many similar answers.
You athiests claim to be the opposite of thiests, but you have one giant thing in common: you're both absolutely sure of the unknowable.
Lumping all atheists in one basket is silly, especially since there is so much disagreement over what "atheism" even means.
Many of us use the word in its original literal meaning. The Latin prefix "a" means "absence" or "lack of", so an "atheist" would translate to: a person "without god", or "lacking religion", and as you know the absence of belief is not the same as a belief in absence.
Contrary to what you imply, we recognize the lack of conclusive evidence and make a choice based on practical considerations like the scientific method and Occam's razor. We are also quite ready to admit that we do not know the answers to some questions but are quite capable leading productive and fulfilling lives without worrying about it too much.
And if you do come with an answer, we will be open to accept it if it can be empirically verified to be better then the others. Once you present a reproducibly testable and falsifiable proof of a higher power, quite a number of atheists will be willing to change their stance and accept it, although it may not be the same higher power that you believe in. I think the FSM is a reasonably strong candidate.
Is lab-grown meat slaughtered pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?
The bible does not prescribe any methods for slaughtering meat, it prescribes methods for slaughtering animals.
Is lab-grown meat cleaned of its blood pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?
It could be. There is nothing that prevents it to be washed and salted prior to preparation (other than ruining the taste but that's a completely different subject). Not to mention that lab-grown meat may not have any blood in it to begin with.
Lab-grown meat is not Kosher. END OF STORY.
Spoken like a true opinionated ignoramus. You would make Dunning and Kruger proud.
Python is not directly competing with any Microsoft products, so the EEE strategy would not apply.
Besides, they haven't been doing it for decades. Not that the corporation has suddenly become moral, it just doesn't make business sense for them to try without the market dominance they once had.
Not even close. The const operator is the biggest difference between the two languages. C++ is not an improved C language.
Arrays and compound literals are handled differently; some integer math is different; variable promotion is not intuitive nor intrinsic; there's no simplified cast in C++, it's a tangled web of nutty cast operators to perform a straightforward task. That's the short list, too.
Also, I have 20-year old C code that compiles and runs today. I have 20-year old C++ code that crashes and burns under modern compilers (when it ran fine in it's day, like molasses, but ran).
1. Ugh, typo! I meant C89, not C99. My bad. That said, I do not claim that C++ is a strict superset of C89, only "mostly", but I don't see it as a problem because they are different languages. C programs should be compiled with C compilers.
2. C++ has always supported C-style casts.
3. Conformant C++98 code should work the same when compiled under compilers conforming to newer versions of the standard. Other than the obvious cases of adding keywords and deprecating auto_ptr, I would be interested to see code examples to the contrary. Please note that relying on undefined behaviour or nonstandard extensions does not count.
Slashdot Mirror
Chrome can open MHTML files, Firefox used to (with an add-on) but not anymore, and there are free viewers available. All one has to do is to set the association of .MHT files to another program.
I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony
Ugh, meant March 8th. Sorry.
They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.
Not really 50%, just at least 3 women if the number of board members is 6 or more, 2 if the number is 5, and 1 otherwise.
Other than that, I find two loopholes in the bill large enough to drive a medium-sized planet through:
Regarding violations and penalties:
301.3.(e)(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation.
301.3.(f)(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
So for one day a year (I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony), the chairman of the board should come to work in drag.
This. A million times. Seriously, what's so hard about being part of a community and following rules?
Rosa Parks would like to have a word with you.
The regulators should counter by insisting that Mark Zuckerberg must be subject to daily anal probes, to combat terrorism and child abuse of course.
And who wrote the system, designing it to benefit the lawyers above all else? That's right, lawyers.
You're right that the class members could have looked for a firm to handle this for free or much less than it actually cost in legal fees.
End result: everyone gets nothing, and Yahoo faces no consequences at all.
Which is the better outcome?
1. False dichotomy
2. Class members are usually opted in into a class action without their knowledge or consent.
Besides, everyone should learn how to code, learn how to file their taxes, learn to cook, learn CPR...
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
Suggestions?
It's called "hosts"
Hush! Or you will invoke... him!
Or you could, you know, raise your children to not murder people, so they don't need privacy from homicide detectives. Just sayin.
Homicide detective's #1 priority is to close cases. It does not matter if they get the actual murderer as long as they can build a strong case against a person -- any person. So if your DNA is found on the scene of the crime (and you leave traces of you DNA whenever you go) and you don't happen to have an ironclad alibi, well then my friend, it sucks to be you.
How did that got upvoted to +5 when the answer is right there in TFA:
A WhatsApp spokesperson tells me that it scans all unencrypted information on its network — basically anything outside of chat threads themselves — including user profile photos, group profile photos and group information.
Antitheist?
Every other documented example of what you describe was actually done for a reason
Market dominance is a reason.
Angela Merkel should avoid connection flights via Toronto.
Just saying.
I use FireFox, both mobile and desktop, and google docs and spreadsheets work fine for me. Haven't tried Slides recently but it worked fine the last time I did.
Open Google's image search in mobile Firefox.
Then do it in mobile Chrome.
See the difference in functionality?
Now change Firefox's user agent to masquerade as Chrome.
Suddenly the full functionality is back.
Google already downgrades search functionality for firefox mobile. Once I changed the user agent to chrome, all the missing features suddenly appeared and were working with no issues.
Make no mistake, Google is just as evil as Microsoft was in its day.
OK, first, I apologize for implying that all atheists are cocky. Here on slashdot, you can probably see how I got that impression.
Slashdot is not a representative of the broad population, and I would respectfully submit that your impressions are based on just a tiny vocal minority of users. Most people that I came in contact with, believers and unbelievers alike, keep their beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves unless asked.
The term "atheist" is universally used to describe a person who claims that god does not exist
No it isn't.
Quoting Wikipedia:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Claiming that the narrowest definition is "universal" is at best incorrect.
not a person who answers "I don't know" or refuses to answer the question. Those people are universally known as agnostics, not atheists,
Gnosis refers to knowledge, not belief. The terms are orthogonal, in the sense that both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic. I suggest reading the Wikipedia article I linked to above, it is quite an interesting summary and will help you understand people that categorize themselves as atheists while not falling under your chosen definition of the word.
But let me show you that it also works without allowing a "null" answer. You just need to ask two seperate questions.
Take the question, "Do you believe that god exists?". A true theist would have to answer "yes". A true atheist would have to answer "no".
What would a True Scotsman(TM) answer?
What does an agnostic answer? "I don't know", of course.
Wrong.
An agnostic may answer either "yes" or "no". They will answer "I don't know" when asked "does god exist?" which is an entirely different question.
If you can pose the question "Do you believe that god exists?" as a boolean, then I can negate the question and pose it as a boolean too: "Do you believe that god does not exist?"
Belief is not a boolean proposition and therefore your question is invalid.
A valid question would be "how strongly do you believe that god exists?" If you go outside and ask a hundred random people that question, I doubt you'll get many similar answers.
You athiests claim to be the opposite of thiests, but you have one giant thing in common: you're both absolutely sure of the unknowable.
Lumping all atheists in one basket is silly, especially since there is so much disagreement over what "atheism" even means.
Many of us use the word in its original literal meaning. The Latin prefix "a" means "absence" or "lack of", so an "atheist" would translate to: a person "without god", or "lacking religion", and as you know the absence of belief is not the same as a belief in absence.
Contrary to what you imply, we recognize the lack of conclusive evidence and make a choice based on practical considerations like the scientific method and Occam's razor. We are also quite ready to admit that we do not know the answers to some questions but are quite capable leading productive and fulfilling lives without worrying about it too much.
And if you do come with an answer, we will be open to accept it if it can be empirically verified to be better then the others. Once you present a reproducibly testable and falsifiable proof of a higher power, quite a number of atheists will be willing to change their stance and accept it, although it may not be the same higher power that you believe in. I think the FSM is a reasonably strong candidate.
Thanks for being willing to listen to my opinions on why pedophilia is good for children.
Listening to your opinions can enhance our understanding of the pedophile mind, which can lead to better approaches to prevention and treatment.
Is lab-grown meat slaughtered pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?
The bible does not prescribe any methods for slaughtering meat, it prescribes methods for slaughtering animals.
Is lab-grown meat cleaned of its blood pursuant to Biblically-prescribed methods?
It could be. There is nothing that prevents it to be washed and salted prior to preparation (other than ruining the taste but that's a completely different subject).
Not to mention that lab-grown meat may not have any blood in it to begin with.
Lab-grown meat is not Kosher. END OF STORY.
Spoken like a true opinionated ignoramus. You would make Dunning and Kruger proud.
Python is not directly competing with any Microsoft products, so the EEE strategy would not apply.
Besides, they haven't been doing it for decades.
Not that the corporation has suddenly become moral, it just doesn't make business sense for them to try without the market dominance they once had.
Do not feed the trolls.
C and C++ are different languages. While C++ is mostly a superset of C99
Sorry, I meant to type C89. Thank you AC!
Not even close. The const operator is the biggest difference
between the two languages. C++ is not an improved C language.
Arrays and compound literals are handled differently; some integer
math is different; variable promotion is not intuitive nor intrinsic;
there's no simplified cast in C++, it's a tangled web of nutty cast
operators to perform a straightforward task. That's the short list, too.
Also, I have 20-year old C code that compiles and runs today. I
have 20-year old C++ code that crashes and burns under modern
compilers (when it ran fine in it's day, like molasses, but ran).
1. Ugh, typo! I meant C89, not C99. My bad. That said, I do not claim that C++ is a strict superset of C89, only "mostly", but I don't see it as a problem because they are different languages. C programs should be compiled with C compilers.
2. C++ has always supported C-style casts.
3. Conformant C++98 code should work the same when compiled under compilers conforming to newer versions of the standard. Other than the obvious cases of adding keywords and deprecating auto_ptr, I would be interested to see code examples to the contrary. Please note that relying on undefined behaviour or nonstandard extensions does not count.