I know why: They're lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about “consensus” among climate scientists.
No, it's because "Arrgh! We're all going to die!" sells more newspapers than "Nothing's happening here, folks".
They'll likely fall for a predefined attack vector
Also, jamming and false imagining will pretty much end any use of drones in the battle field
giving machines gun seams like a rather bad idea.
You do realise there's a difference between "unmanned" and "autonomous" don't you?
He "hesitated", and then (according to her) started abusing her on commit messages, and pulling her code out. It was the that, not the "hesitation" that I was labelling as "not handling it well".
It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.
Of the other issues she raised:
* Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
* Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them
The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.
Nobody said abolish; they said limit their powers. And yes, states government's powers should be more limited than their constituent cities, for precisely the reasons you list.
It's not that state politicians are more moral; it's that their power is more limited. Less power = less corruption - and they have 49 competitors, which are relatively trivial to move between (compared to moving to a different country, anyway).
That statement is beyond dim, do you not understand what the definition of inequality is?
I'm the dim one, when apparently you cannot perform basic comprehension. I was questioning why 50 poor people getting rich was considered a bad thing, not why it was considered inequality.
How many decades of there being no "trickle-down effect"....profits get paid to rich shareholders and directors.
Blah, blah, blah, off-topic ranting on "trickle-down" economics that has nothing to do with what I posted. I guess a keyword in my post must have tripped a spinal reflex, or something.
When interviewer Steven Levy noted 'gazelles' like the 50-employee WhatsApp which was acquired by Facebook for a reported $19 billion seem to lead to more inequality, Schmidt brushed aside the apparent contradiction.
50 people getting a split of $19b is seen as a bad thing because it "increases inequality". Why? Would the rest of the area be better off if those 50 people were still poor? It was a transfer of wealth from Facebook's war chest to 50 individuals - the money wasn't taken from the rest of the population. Surely the measure of increasing prosperity should be how much your buying power has grown, rather than the fact that someone down the street's buying power increased more than yours.
Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.
They are unsafe because of poor schools, poor policing, the wage freeze, and the drug war.
Good, so you agree with me.
When rich assholes...snip snip snip, rant rant rant....you're exactly the person that Jesus of Nazareth said wouldn't get into heaven.
All I said was that saying "slums are not safe" does not imply "slum-dwellers are subhuman". All the rest was you projecting, and a mighty fine job you did of it, too.
No, you re-wrote what the OP said. He didn't say "unfit for human habitation" he implied that they were living in a place unsafe for human habitation.
That doesn't mean the occupants aren't human - it means that they're living a place that isn't safe. This is fairly basic English language comprehension.
Which has what to do with your claim that the OP implied that poor people aren't human, exactly?
making the slums safe for human habitation again.
So people who make less money than you are also less than human?
Uh, no - it means people who make significantly less money than me tend to live in unsafe places.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference that addressed recent rumors.
Bitcoin held an impromptu press conference? Did the Dollar and the Peso attend as well?
Oh, you mean Mt. Gox held an impromptu press conference. Yeah, well, whoever trusted an online card trading portal as if it were a bank deserves whatever they got, IMO.
Not if they're using animal rennet to set the curd. Modern cheeses often don't, but it was the standard method in traditional cheesemaking.
Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.
Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.
