Perhaps, but reading this from TFS: " Brooke's disorder that has kept her aging in check." Seems to imply she isn't aging. Of course maybe my definition, and the summary's definition of "aging" differs from yours.
It is a game, the iportant thing is that everyone is playing by the same rules.
No it's not. There are a limited number of each letter. If one letter becomes easier play, and there's only one of that letter, then the person who drew it gets an unfair advantage.
Are you saying the person who draws the limited character is now playing by a different set of rules?
People like to play poker because although you will lose to a poker pro over time,
Many people like to play poker because they THINK they are better than the pro (and an element of luck helps give them that illusion)
But really people play poker because it is fun. They aren't typically playing a pro, or Magnus Carlsen all that often.
Is the Atlantic held to a higher standard for whatever reason?
Yes.
There are two differences. One is that the ad was made to look like a normal, unbiased news article. But at the same time, someone was removing critical comments. The latter is bad, the former is pretty much unforgivable for a news site.
I think it wasn't so much that it was paid content, that look similar to unpaid content (I've personally always hated that) but it was the deletion of some of the critical comments.
I don't give a shit what he does in his personal life...... but to me he's moved into the realm of actors I dislike and won't watch his stuff.
So, you give a shit about his personal life? (Otherwise why do you care about Oprah's sofa?)
Or do you just not like him as an actor? I'm guessing it is more the former than the later, otherwise why even bother to mention his personal life?
I don't think he is the best actor, but I do like some of his movies.
The second amendment clearly states that the purpose of bearing arms is to participate in a local or state (possibly even federal) militia--i.e. FOR the government, not against it.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government,
We don't really know that our Founding Fathers were thinking, and what exactly what they meant, when they wrote that. But we can look to other papers they also wrote for clues. One such notable paper says "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-"
So I'd lean more towards our right to bear arms was for the purpose to take up arms against our own government, than to take up arms for our government.
When a regular driver drives 200 MPH it is an arrestable offense. When a race car driver does it on a race track, he his given millions of dollars. Can this social order please collapse now? It's bankrupt....
Personally I don't think the issue is that a "human" did it, but it is HOW he did it. Of course if the business ever finds out, of course they will let the guy go. Why keep paying him, when the corporation could just outsource it.
Look if you were hiring a corporation (say a dry cleaner) to do work, and later you found out the corporation was outsourcing the job for 1/5 what you were paying. What will you do, keep using the corporation, or go to the source yourself?
No. You give permission to facebook and instagram (don't you remember this discussion about instagram not long ago, and the reason they've lost half their users)
BUT you could use this against facebook and instagram users who repost your photo outside of facebook and instagram
I RTFA, it didn't say anything about studying "learning computer algorithms.' It did mention "ran thousands of simulations of two-player games to see how human behaviour affects their decision-making."
I'm not saying they didn't study humans, but it doesn't look like they studied learning computer algorithms either.
First, off, I don't believe IP rights should not be owned by corporations.
So who owns them? And how will they now be abused by individuals? And who owns a copyright on something that 1000 people make? What problem will this solve (that won't also be a problem when corporations can't own IP)
TFA are pretty slim, not a lot of meat to them. Apparently at one point, one of the families agreed to an annuity (plus some other benefits) I don't know if that was for the 50% or what it was for. But yes, it appears at least one family was being compensated. Probably not to the tune of the billion dollars the franchise is worth.
Mickey Mouse thinks your Superman is a youngster, and he wants you to get off his lawn.
Why isn't Mickey (err Mortimer) and Superman in public domain, money... And lots of it.
We don't NEED big budget movies, but we seem to appreciate them. And the movies themselves need "excessive" copyrights, otherwise they wouldn't make enough money to make another.
The movies don't need to be based on "excessive" copyrights. Otherwise why would they have wasted 400 million on John Carter, or why make moves that are almost identical to a movie another company is also producing that happens from time to time.
Plain and simple, you don't have to work in the Ethics department to understand he comitted crimes
Well no you don't, because Ethics don't have anything to do with crimes. He might have done something ethically wrong, but that doesn't mean he committed a crime.
But, by the same token, just because he committed a crime, doesn't mean he didn't something ethically wrong. A LOT of people believe Rosa Parks did something right, yet she committed a crime.
"Computer literacy" != "learning to program" I agree that computer literacy should be a basic concept taught at an early age. It might also help to teach a bit of a programming at an early age (I'd rather see something like logic and discrete math taught at a younger age). But later on, it should be an elective, not a requirement.
Your average person needs computer literacy, they do not need programming. But give them the opportunity, if they want it.
There is a difference between "knowing how to use computers" and "programming computers." Yes you should have an understanding of computers and their software. Some concept of how the internet works (not the nitty gritty, just the general ideas) But how does know "10 print "hello world"; goto 10" help you do any of that? I do a pretty good job of wearing clothes. I don't really have a concept at all about how clothes are made. Of course I know how to keep them clean, and that is what is important.
People seem to equate "programmer" as "computer expert" and that isn't necessarily the case. I think in this day and age, having an understanding how software works and interacts is important. Knowing how to program, doesn't help your average person one bit.
Your example on bikes... I'm pretty good at riding them. I can change a flat, and oil the chain. Anything else take it to the expert. I don't have them time, the tools, or know how to do it myself. If my spoke breaks, and I could fix it myself, doesn't it make me a better bike rider? No, it might mean that I can ride my bike sooner (or cheaper) but it isn't worth my time or trouble. Could I get swindled into buying a bike that is too expensive, costs more than it should? Perhaps, but that's when you try to hire an expert. OR instead I could spend that time and money training myself and learn that info (of course how does that happen? You talk to the experts... simpler and easier to just hire the expert)
I'm not sure that learning some superficial idea of a language is going to help
I was thinking the same thing. How is "You don't need to become an expert, just know the basics, so you're not helpless." going to help you? How will knowing the basics, make you not helpless? You might understand a little bit more what your programmer is saying, but otherwise you still need to find someone to make your idea or work on your website. Because the basics won't cover it.
I don't get the singing thing either. I don't sing, but I'm willing to bet that singers listen to other singers. Shoot I'm a programmer, and guess what I use other people's programs, and I'm still at their mercy. I don't have the time to do it all. As a singer I wouldn't want to be constantly singing, either.
you have no idea where to start, you have no idea what a programmer would need to do it.
Describe your idea, ask the programmer what he needs to know. You don't, and shouldn't need to know anything about a program to describe what you want to do to a programmer. In fact you are BETTER off not knowing anything. I don't know how many times that someone trying to tell me what to program, but limited the idea because they thought they knew better. I tell them, just tell me what you want it to do. I'll figure out if it can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but reading this from TFS: " Brooke's disorder that has kept her aging in check." Seems to imply she isn't aging. Of course maybe my definition, and the summary's definition of "aging" differs from yours.
It is a game, the iportant thing is that everyone is playing by the same rules.
No it's not. There are a limited number of each letter. If one letter becomes easier play, and there's only one of that letter, then the person who drew it gets an unfair advantage.
Are you saying the person who draws the limited character is now playing by a different set of rules?
People like to play poker because although you will lose to a poker pro over time,
Many people like to play poker because they THINK they are better than the pro (and an element of luck helps give them that illusion)
But really people play poker because it is fun. They aren't typically playing a pro, or Magnus Carlsen all that often.
Is the Atlantic held to a higher standard for whatever reason?
Yes.
There are two differences. One is that the ad was made to look like a normal, unbiased news article. But at the same time, someone was removing critical comments. The latter is bad, the former is pretty much unforgivable for a news site.
I think it wasn't so much that it was paid content, that look similar to unpaid content (I've personally always hated that) but it was the deletion of some of the critical comments.
I don't give a shit what he does in his personal life ...... but to me he's moved into the realm of actors I dislike and won't watch his stuff.
So, you give a shit about his personal life? (Otherwise why do you care about Oprah's sofa?)
Or do you just not like him as an actor? I'm guessing it is more the former than the later, otherwise why even bother to mention his personal life?
I don't think he is the best actor, but I do like some of his movies.
So... You don't support anyone?
The second amendment clearly states that the purpose of bearing arms is to participate in a local or state (possibly even federal) militia--i.e. FOR the government, not against it.
It doesn't "clearly" state that at all.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government,
We don't really know that our Founding Fathers were thinking, and what exactly what they meant, when they wrote that. But we can look to other papers they also wrote for clues. One such notable paper says "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-"
So I'd lean more towards our right to bear arms was for the purpose to take up arms against our own government, than to take up arms for our government.
Instead of leaving us guessing, why not just tell us?
When a regular driver drives 200 MPH it is an arrestable offense. When a race car driver does it on a race track, he his given millions of dollars. Can this social order please collapse now? It's bankrupt....
Personally I don't think the issue is that a "human" did it, but it is HOW he did it. Of course if the business ever finds out, of course they will let the guy go. Why keep paying him, when the corporation could just outsource it.
Look if you were hiring a corporation (say a dry cleaner) to do work, and later you found out the corporation was outsourcing the job for 1/5 what you were paying. What will you do, keep using the corporation, or go to the source yourself?
No. You give permission to facebook and instagram (don't you remember this discussion about instagram not long ago, and the reason they've lost half their users)
BUT you could use this against facebook and instagram users who repost your photo outside of facebook and instagram
I RTFA, it didn't say anything about studying "learning computer algorithms.' It did mention "ran thousands of simulations of two-player games to see how human behaviour affects their decision-making."
I'm not saying they didn't study humans, but it doesn't look like they studied learning computer algorithms either.
First, off, I don't believe IP rights should not be owned by corporations.
So who owns them? And how will they now be abused by individuals? And who owns a copyright on something that 1000 people make? What problem will this solve (that won't also be a problem when corporations can't own IP)
TFA are pretty slim, not a lot of meat to them. Apparently at one point, one of the families agreed to an annuity (plus some other benefits) I don't know if that was for the 50% or what it was for. But yes, it appears at least one family was being compensated. Probably not to the tune of the billion dollars the franchise is worth.
Trademarks DO expire. They have to be renewed. AND vigilantly defended.
Mickey Mouse thinks your Superman is a youngster, and he wants you to get off his lawn.
Why isn't Mickey (err Mortimer) and Superman in public domain, money... And lots of it.
We don't NEED big budget movies, but we seem to appreciate them. And the movies themselves need "excessive" copyrights, otherwise they wouldn't make enough money to make another.
The movies don't need to be based on "excessive" copyrights. Otherwise why would they have wasted 400 million on John Carter, or why make moves that are almost identical to a movie another company is also producing that happens from time to time.
Fans could not be sure that the movie that they were going to see was the "official" Superman;
I'm still trying to figure out if the last Spiderman I saw was the "offical" Spiderman (err "official" Amazing Spiderman)
Plain and simple, you don't have to work in the Ethics department to understand he comitted crimes
Well no you don't, because Ethics don't have anything to do with crimes. He might have done something ethically wrong, but that doesn't mean he committed a crime.
But, by the same token, just because he committed a crime, doesn't mean he didn't something ethically wrong. A LOT of people believe Rosa Parks did something right, yet she committed a crime.
Programming is HARD.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to get, especially programmers!
"Computer literacy" != "learning to program" I agree that computer literacy should be a basic concept taught at an early age. It might also help to teach a bit of a programming at an early age (I'd rather see something like logic and discrete math taught at a younger age). But later on, it should be an elective, not a requirement.
Your average person needs computer literacy, they do not need programming. But give them the opportunity, if they want it.
There is a difference between "knowing how to use computers" and "programming computers." Yes you should have an understanding of computers and their software. Some concept of how the internet works (not the nitty gritty, just the general ideas) But how does know "10 print "hello world"; goto 10" help you do any of that? I do a pretty good job of wearing clothes. I don't really have a concept at all about how clothes are made. Of course I know how to keep them clean, and that is what is important.
People seem to equate "programmer" as "computer expert" and that isn't necessarily the case. I think in this day and age, having an understanding how software works and interacts is important. Knowing how to program, doesn't help your average person one bit.
Your example on bikes... I'm pretty good at riding them. I can change a flat, and oil the chain. Anything else take it to the expert. I don't have them time, the tools, or know how to do it myself. If my spoke breaks, and I could fix it myself, doesn't it make me a better bike rider? No, it might mean that I can ride my bike sooner (or cheaper) but it isn't worth my time or trouble. Could I get swindled into buying a bike that is too expensive, costs more than it should? Perhaps, but that's when you try to hire an expert. OR instead I could spend that time and money training myself and learn that info (of course how does that happen? You talk to the experts... simpler and easier to just hire the expert)
I'm not sure that learning some superficial idea of a language is going to help
I was thinking the same thing. How is "You don't need to become an expert, just know the basics, so you're not helpless." going to help you? How will knowing the basics, make you not helpless? You might understand a little bit more what your programmer is saying, but otherwise you still need to find someone to make your idea or work on your website. Because the basics won't cover it.
I don't get the singing thing either. I don't sing, but I'm willing to bet that singers listen to other singers. Shoot I'm a programmer, and guess what I use other people's programs, and I'm still at their mercy. I don't have the time to do it all. As a singer I wouldn't want to be constantly singing, either.
you have no idea where to start, you have no idea what a programmer would need to do it.
Describe your idea, ask the programmer what he needs to know. You don't, and shouldn't need to know anything about a program to describe what you want to do to a programmer. In fact you are BETTER off not knowing anything. I don't know how many times that someone trying to tell me what to program, but limited the idea because they thought they knew better. I tell them, just tell me what you want it to do. I'll figure out if it can be done.