Objectively, yes, it has one feature which makes it superior to most other images. It is "the standard". That is, the same work has been done with the image a zillion times, and much of that work can be referenced for comparison.

It has already been mentioned that Windows is the "standard", and that the standard is not always the "best" tool for the job. I can agree with that. But, show me the Linux administrator who can't use Windows, and I'll show you an incompetent Linux administrator.

Same here. The COURSE wasn't built around this image, was it? TFA implies that this image was used for one assignment in the course.

If, in all other respects, the image were exactly the same, but the subject in the image was selling makeup, would people still be offended by it? If not, why not?

I looked at the original full image. In that image, there is no part of Lena's body that is not on public display on beaches around the world.

And - even if there were - what of it? Do the people who are offended by the image not possess the same body parts? I mean, WTF? Don't they see all of that and more, every time they bathe?

Oh, I think I get it. They don't like their own bodies, how can we expect them to like images of bodies that are in any way similar to their own?

Not sure how serious you are. My rights end where your RIGHTS begin. You don't have a right to feel good. You don't have a right to "not be offended". I hope you're being sarcastic. The sarcasm font on my computer doesn't work well, so I can't tell.

bro, you need to stop going to reddit, bunch of dummy poopy heads there. go to hackernews

if you get confused by the results when you google for hackernews, you don't belong there. stay on reddit

so you support child labor?

If you find that interesting, you may also be interested in the VMWare install script, which starts as a shell script but has a compressed binary attached to the end.

It's hard to believe that page is not satire.

How can you possibly know without reading the actual review, and also at least skimming the paper?

Too many offers is a result of more demand for programmers than supply of programmers. This can happen because of a bubble, or it can happen for other reasons. You can't automatically conclude it's a bubble.

Look for valuations to become unreasonable, that is the true sign of a bubble.

Then say what is going while also being technically accurate. To do otherwise makes you look ignorant.

Oh. In your initial comment I interpreted your writing to mean that they were targeting science. Whereas I interpret their actions to be targeting the EPA.

That seems like a better metric, but anything under 6% is 'full employment.' You don't want 100% employment because there will always be people who quit to look for new jobs, etc.

Instead of merely looking at the unemployment number, also look at the number of people who have been searching for over six months, and how many have dropped out of the workforce completely (although to get a clear picture, you should also try to determine why they dropped out).

oh? You can go innovate your buzzword into the cloud!

Using a crappier measurement of inflation doesn't improve your argument.

Sounds about right.

I trust the judgement of peers before I trust the judgement of a shrink. I've heard to many things from and about shrinks to believe that they know shit from shinola.