But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
I'm not sure you understand what "without limitation" means.
Limitation means the Air Force. "without limitation" means "without the Air Force".
Certainly, the Navy knows these things.
Are they insane? that BYOD better not be any where near any nuke launcher systems
No, I don't think Apple can sue.
The iTunes app store terms and conditions only says:
You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
No development, no design, no manufacture, no production.
But no where does it say "launching". Launching should be fine.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
Let's go to the actual claim he made which was recorded by the tech media, long before he was arrested for his tweet.
He claims he was able to hack the simulator of a plane to access the thrust (not a real plane mind you, the simulator of a plane). Is the simulator as good and as realistic as he claims it to be? or not?
Since you seem to be an expert yourself on this subject, please tell us. Are the electronics of the simulator he used a good replica of the electronics found on an actual plane? Or did the guy just play Microsoft SimFlight and found a way to hack Windows XP?
"Regular" people usually don't know the difference, in my experience. Web designers pay more attention to the source of such images than most readers because it's their job. Maybe if your org is Gucci or BMW it matters more because such customers hone into style issues more.
I think you misunderstood what I said, and that we're in agreement on some level.
Assuming you're not working for BMW or Gucci, I believe that having no graphics at all can be much better than purchasing a bunch of royalty-free perfect-looking insincere photographs from some stock photography web site.
The same goes for special animations and perfect-looking videos. Barring a few exceptions, I don't believe those effects are necessary to make a web site useful and valuable to users.
And throwing out all those stock photographs and those unnecessary effects may actually improve the usability of a web site, not just for disabled people, but may be even for everyone (and at very little cost, since it's the effects that usually cost money, and it's the more basic web sites that usually cost less money).
We are starting to toss images altogether so that we don't have that risk. But our web content is growing bland, making us "look" bad to normal readers.
Are those images you're tossing out stock photography images? Because believe me, those may look super cool and super useful to web site designers, but stock photos are not only bland and cliche, they actually look super insincere to the user who is inundated by them on every company web site.
users can enjoy a custom and connected Web experience and take their favorite content (apps, videos, photos, websites) across devices without being locked into one proprietary ecosystem or brand.
Except for the newly-introduced Firefox DRM from Adobe that is.
Don't you love the new double-speak.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time.
That's not the point I was making.
All it takes is one smart kid to screw around. Then, he'll be so proud of himself if he finds something, that he'll find ways to show off his trick to as many other kids as possible (especially to the other kids with Chromebooks).
The same goes for a kid that finds the workaround online, or stumbles onto it through social media. He'll brag to other kids as if he invented the workaround himself.
...we need computing platforms that are restricted in the use of the computer, to make it function better as an educational platform.
Cheap Chromebooks the sim card explicitly removed and without the wifi password used to fill that niche, but now most new Chromebooks are touch-enabled and they'll be able to run Android soon. In other words, Google is about to mess it all up for parents.
And it won't be long until one kid figures out how he can download an apk to a usb stick or a memory card, and can play it on a friend's Chromebook. By the time 5th period rolls around, everyone in his school will have seen it done. And within a week or two, all kids who use Chromebooks in the entire United States will have seen it done (even if they themselves do not have direct internet access).
At that point, parents will just have resell their Chromebooks on Ebay and trade them in, for either paper notepads or old-fashioned electric type-writers. Or they'll be forced to just place the Chromebooks under lock and key like they've been forced to do with the wifi hub, the router, and everything else.
What is an "underachieving" driver? Someone who doesn't know how to park in parallel? Someone who only drives a few miles per year?
Well since they're testing for the metabolites of the stuff, probably not unless you're in the habit of eating $100 bills.
Either that, or it would be easy enough for someone to frame you by making sure you touch those metabolites before getting tested.
This movie, Mad Max: Fury Roads, looks extremely well crafted from the previews. It looks like a cross from Cirque du Soleil and the old Mad Max. I've only watched the previews, and I can't tell for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called activist wasn't getting paid for his manufactured "outrage" as a form of guerrilla tactic by the movie creators themselves.
If you guys really want to watch a movie that's upsetting for men's rights to watch. Watch Hitch. The main character, Hitch, is supposedly the one exploiting women, and there is a political message obviously embedded in there, but somehow, the smart hot woman he is after is the one who is constantly treating him like crap. And the more she treats him like crap, the more he falls in love with her. In the end, they end up together, but I'm not even sure why that is. He's obviously in love with her, but there is no indication she even likes the guy (except for the jet ski sessions and all the other free stuff he gives her may be?).
And before someone starts criticizing my observation because the pathetic character in Hitch was the male this time, I can think of quite a few movies where it's the woman who is stuck in a one-sided love and the situation is the complete opposite. It's just that in those other movies, that kind of pathetic behavior doesn't get celebrated by the audience and those other movies do not come out specifically on Valentine's day as a model for couples to watch together and emulate.
Asians aren't black. They get better test scores than black. They don't fall under affirmative action so they aren't admitted even though they have the test scores. There are many studies showing that Asians are disproportionately negatively affected by affirmative action.
Yes, but the lawsuit doesn't compare black student's test scores with asian test scores, it specifically compares white people's test scores with asian test scores instead. In other words, this lawsuit has nothing to do with black people taking the places of asians. It's only addressing the issue of white people with significantly lower test scores taking the places that should be going to asians instead.
And that's the thing, why do white people need to be protected from asians? And why are we even pretending that there was never any racism against the Chinese or the Japanese for instance? Because, there sure was. From the building of the railroads, to the internment camps of Chinese immigrants, to the internment camps and confiscation of assets of the Japanese (but not the Germans). There sure was plenty of discrimination against asians, not to mention plenty of discrimination at the University and school level.
Why can't anyone just admit that this policy of discrimination from Harvard is just a longterm continuation (not a reparation) of the discrimination that asians faced in the past (and it has nothing to do with black people, since black people's test scores are not even mentioned in the lawsuit at all).
In fact, the very same language used against asians is also constantly used against black people. Not long ago, white people used to complain about the invasions of black people into their neighborhoods and into their schools. In the 1920s, it was the invasions of Jews into their schools. Now, the target has shifted once more. It's the invasions of asians into their schools that have white people worry the most about.
You are an idiot. All white folks (me included) have benefited from racism.
You're posting on the wrong thread. The main story is about asians, being discriminated against, for racism that they had nothing to do with.
No. Though some people feel that way. Affirmative action is what t says it is; instead of passively assuming that civil rights makes people equal overnight, there needed to be an active response to try and make things equal.
No. Affirmative action is racist, not because it's trying to protect black students, but it's because it's protecting the status quo and the racism that occurred in the past.
If we were really trying to fix things, the answer would be super simple. We know the people who benefited from racism in the past. Their names and their pictures are already published in the old Harvard year books. The answer is as simple as that. The children of Alumni, and their children's children's shouldn't be allowed to attend Harvard again. And those spots should be reallocated to blacks students.
Instead, Affirmative Action targets the children of immigrants, the outsiders, and the people who look different. In other words, it's targeting the very people that have absolutely nothing to do with the racism of the past.
Racism 2.0. That's what Affirmative Action really is. It's really about protecting the people and the families who benefited the most from racism in the past.
people do insane things. all the time. if your argument depends upon how someone you don't know is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks
I don't know. What Roberts did sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Roberts had previously told WIRED that he caused a plane to climb during a simulated test on a virtual environment he and a colleague created, but he insisted then that he had not interfered with the operation of a plane while in flight.
If you ask me, it's the FBI that sounds completely insane.
And if your argument is that the FBI is perfectly sane and rational, your argument sucks.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
