1. downtime is unacceptable for this application. this code controls so much, does so many things, and is so obscure (say it with me, payments processing subsystem) that to do ANYTHING to it is literally worse than pistol whipping the CEO's daughter.
Then you can't afford not to have a backup server and a development server. This point needs expansion
It can be disabled, but can you trust that they won't "accidentally" turn it back on with an update? If you must use Chrome, use Chromium instead. The only practical difference besides that it doesn't spy on you for Google is that you need to install a Flash player (if desired) manually.
Stupid objection the first: "This is worth a lot more than a million dollars."
Response:
Does Google own the intellectual property created during the competition?
No. Google is not requiring any IP or licenses be granted except a non-exclusive license to be used only for the purpose of testing the inverter and publicizing the prize. [...] However, in the spirit of advancing this power electronics community, Google may choose to make public some or all of the teamsâ(TM) high-level technical approach documents
Stupid objection the second: (something stupid about 12 volts)
Response:
Will be taking in 450 V DC power in series with a 10 Ω resistor
Must output 240 V, 60 Hz AC single phase power
I know that slashdotters don't RTFA, but seriously, all of you jaw-jacking about 12 volts or about how a million is chump change are a bunch of Useless McToolbags. STFU already.
Business is neither moral, nor immoral but AMORAL. People are either moral, or immoral, they are not amoral. Everyone is a hypocrite, at some point will violate their own moral code. This is called situational ethics, and is popular in politics.
If your personal code of ethics prevents you from doing business with people who are hypocritical(evil, bad, immoral etc), then you'll be doing business with nobody, The best you can do is do business with people who support your ideals more often that the other guys.
Unless things have changed since I was interested in this, they never supported a White List.
If you are managing your little kid's access, you want to pick and choose sites/review the before giving them the OK.
So, he says, you should make sure you buy new hardware only when necessary, not just because of the "Ooh... shiny!" factor"
What's new about this advice? Was it not as useful and applicable 50, 100, and 1000 years ago?
Employing a Marxist theory of capitalism to refute socialism? Fascinating.
Yes, employing an opponent's own theory to prove him wrong is, usually, the most reliable way to deliver defeat in detail to him. Because, although all of us may have different views on life, the views must be self-consistent to be respectable.
The 1970's called, they want their userspace problems back:
Seriously? Twitter? Even if your link really lead to an accusation of a strike on hospital (which it does not), would it have been credible? How about a more reliable source? Oh, sorry, you can't use that, because that page begins with Israel's explanation: "The Israeli military said it had targeted a cache of anti-tank missiles in the hospital's "immediate vicinity".
And we know very well, from sources both impartial and even those biased towards the Arabs, that Hamas does use such civilian buildings for weapons-caches.
Enron. Bernie Madoff.
Duly punished by bankruptcy and prison time.
Asset Backed Paper Commodities.
The only lies exposed by that fiasco is that of the mortgage applicants lying on their loan-applications. Most of those folks have never been to Wall Street.
High Frequency Theft.
No lies there. In other words, fail.
I don't believe that socialism (or capitalism) inherently create more cheating.
I simply believe that once people believe the system is unfair
Your two paragraphs contradict each other. Socialism — with it promise of equal results, rather than opportunity — is unfair, hence, it would create more cheating. Having grown up in the USSR, I still carry the notion, that cheating the government is perfectly Ok (as long as you can get away with it, of course). Because the government was a repressive beast, that cheated its citizenry on everything... My person may be anecdotal evidence, but the Economist's article puts more solid statistics behind it.
Fascism was the one from Italy, remember? It was the nazis with the gas chambers.
While not all Fascists were Nazis, all Nazis were Fascists. And, whenever your kind uses the term "fascists" to denounce someone, they never bother with the fine distinctions between Hitler, Mussolini and Franco — instead attributing the very worst features of all of them to whatever/whoever it is they are denouncing. Hence my question: Where are the gas chambers? And until you can present anything remotely similar, using the term is not called for. Mildly speaking.
The fascists were content with torture chambers, executions and shipping the "undesirables" to other countries to do the dirtiest work.
Oh, if that's, what's bothering you, then Eastern Germany (and the rest of USSR-dominated regimes) were far more "fascist" than the US ever was. Because they were using these methods not on (very) special occasions, but routinely and on massive scale.
Trap full -- please empty.
