Yeah, I don't care what modifier it uses -- on OS X it doesn't freaking work!
Sometimes it goes to the previous app and sometimes it goes to the next app, and sometimes it goes it some other app purely at random.
I think Microsoft must own the IP for the "sequential movement between apps by key-stroke combination" and Steve Jobs was too irate to pay Bill for anything. So they just put a randomize into the routine to avoid a lawsuit.
Simple, non-nonsense interface, reliable ALT+TAB (damn you OS X!), good package manager, with all the redundant filesystem management wizardry. Good support for GPUs and the latest OpenGL/DirectX as well.
All this changed when they gave the Obama the authority to enter into the TPP last week.
NZ law is now US law: and US law is now NZ law
The TPP enforces the laws of any given country in another country under the partnership.
While everyone in the US was diverted by the Charleston church massacre and the misdirected angst over the Confederate flag: the Senate gave the US president authority to enter into this agreement.
If you live in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, Japan, the US or Canada: welcome to the pacific version of the EU!
From the summary:
NASA requires the private companies to certify their spaceships are okay for humans to fly in (even if they're only for cargo). Thus SpaceX and other private companies have to pass the certification that their rockets are theoretically safe for humans.
NASA plans to build an spaceship (that is only going to fly cargo) and actually is only a practice run for another mission -- but since it holds the private companies to this higher standard -- it feels obligated to certify it's own unmanned spaceship is human-certified too. But human-safe certifying is going to delay the project and cost all kinds of money when they're only going to use the spaceship once and its not for humans anyway.
So apparently NASA must decide between hypocrisy and cost savings.
Sorry about the double-post. Reddit is spoiling me -- forgot to include formatting..
They were already equal under the law!
Did you know that farmers get money for farming from the government? So where's mine? I don't farm, but dammit equal protection!
No, I don't get free money from the government for farming unless I actually farm.
It's the same way with state-defined marriage. The states didn't establish a right, they established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Thus gay persons were already equally eligible for this marriage benefit -- if they were willing to marry the opposite sex. Obviously this was not an acceptable requirement for gay people who wanted the subsidy and other incentives associated with marriage despite their natural inability to reproduce as a homogenous team. Well, there were heterosexual exceptions with marriage so:
Redefining marriage to include sex-acts that generally don't produce children was a bet some states thought was worth making. So they did. But now SCOTUS has decided for ALL states they must include homosexual unions as an exception -- the same exceptions they make for sterile and old people.
Sigh. Once again...
The states didn't establish a right, it established a subsidy. A subsidy for people to have sex. The reason states were happy to grant this subsidy was generally people having sex produce children. More children, more people, more commerce, more chances for taxes.
So in exchange for expansion of their future tax-base, states afforded tax breaks and other incentives to get people to commit to creating and raising little future tax-payers.
Redefining marriage to include a sex-act that generally doesn't produce children was a gamble some states thought was worth it. But now SCOTUS decided that states should include homosexual unions as an exception -- just like they make exceptions for the sterile and old people.
Equal rights applies to people only when they are in the same venue.
Say, Bill Gates has a tax liability of a million dollars and gets taxed at say, 19.2%. But John Doe, who washes his windows only makes $20 thousand a year and pays maybe 1%
"Equal rights! I should only have to pay as much as John does", says Bill Gates.
It doesn't work that way. The law only applies to you if you're doing the same thing.
The 14th amendment essentially says if you're making a law, it has to apply to everyone regardless. So whether you're Morgan Freeman or Bill Gates, you still have to pay the higher taxes because you made more money than 99% of the people in the country.
The debate on homosexual marriage was (at the legal level) merely about subsidizing sex. States have always been happy to subsidize sex because it generally produces more tax-payers. Reproduction over the years results in exponential growth. Exponential growth, means growing economy and more economic activity, and thus ultimately way more tax revenue then the skimpy subsidy they gave to married people in the first place.
Redefining marriage to include people whose sex-act doesn't produce future tax-payers was something the states may or may not have thought was going to pay off in the long run. But apparently SCOTUS determined that there was enough room in each states' budget to make room for subsidizing homosexual marriage along with the other marriage exceptions of sterile and old people.
You'll notice the article only has one reported incident of a drone and wildfire. The other, is a neighbor taking pictures of a house fire.
If the fire-fighter is the one shooting down the drone -- they're already there.
And in this case, the fire crew can send the fire-alarm bill directly to the drone-operator. The FAA doesn't need the money anyway.
Okay, I'm like quad-triple posting this... but I really think I finally have this figured out:
The network of male overlords want to eliminate all their male competition: (e.g. like schools of fish or one of the main points of Dr. Strangelove [imdb.com]). Since the technocracy is rising, they can soon rely on robots for all the heavy lifting -- their only problem remaining is the maintaince and programming of the robots and systems they don't want to be bothered with -- so they still need some annoying technical people around. At the moment they're mostly male.
Conclusion: if the goal is for the males that are now in power (or their great-grandsons who will be in power) to be the only males on the face of the planet: then for everything to keep going they must somehow inculcate females to code and eliminate the need for all (other) males entirely.
Low-income girls would be a nice controllable group to start with.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
