How so? Hubris meant an especial sort of ignorance for imagining one is godlike, like the gods, may ignore the gods...it's use as mere insolence, overconfidence, or neglect of the dangers one may encounter, is to empty the word of any special meaning and make it superfluous--but people then proceed to use it because it SOUNDS educated and special. :\

If by "plenty of areas to improve" they meant the code and interfaces, then I agree with your statement: the end-users need something stable, minimum for 1-2 years. THAT DOESN'T MEAN SEPARATE VERSIONS CAN'T BE MADE! largely relying on the same codebase, it's just that when a large groups signs-up at first they need to be able to learn and keep a solid set of expectations.

If by "plenty of areas to improve" they simply meant the documentation for business use, however, then it just means they need the documentation improved.

Obligatory, https://xkcd.com/793/

Always keep in mind that physicists operate on a different plane in their own world dealing with quite different formal objects (or aspects) of "things" but they don't know it.

No, they are seeing what happens with certain changes that occur in viruses that are not improbably to occur in the wild (e.g. any single human that picks-up two strains of flue viruses could be the incubator for a fused variety--and the odds are actually pretty good) so that we know how to respond; I was going to write more but someone else beat me to it, http://science.slashdot.org/co...

AND by doing this sort of work they can also develop novel methods of treatment or ideas on how to do so for viruses with characteristics and behavior that haven't appeared in the wild *yet*. This is the only way to do it, really. The problem now is how to beat the **** out of the level-1 maturity bipolar psychopathic egos who run biology labs like little kingdoms and flagrantly ignore safety rules (a buddy of mine is actually a primary auditor for universities' science programs who receive government funding and he is almost never not floored with how egregiously endangering these operations are to their participants, those on the unversity, and all those around not because "OMG I'M A F***ING IDIOT AND NOTHING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS SHOULD EVER BE DONZ!!!" but because of things like "um, you do realize you're committing a felony by storing 1000 gallons of that kind of alcohol in water jugs, right?"

Ordinary mortals should never be taught the word "hubris", they always use it wrong/inappropriately.

"Rich" is the wrong word--and the distraction (intentional). Here's your correction:

Or they don't really think that hard about them at all, just go what's known and comfortable. The linear view of politics and social issues misses that it's not an either-or with an in-between; those who actually are centrists are therefore pretty...sad creatures, especially when the "extremes" are often questioning the foundation of the views of the polar opposites...of the mainstream.

I'm sure you have plenty of experience with what is sadly the majority of Americans: "whatever as long as I can get my check to get my choice for hits in life."

xD HAHA I got modded down for the supportive comment!

Amazing how you tell the truth and get modded "flamebait." By the time I post a reply I'm hoping you'll have been modded more positively up, though.

Like the authorities who made those "laws" don't have to follow the laws limiting their authority--or the Feds whose actual job is to ensure natural rights don't have to enforce them in the States, only civil ones when they're politically useful?

Bullshit. The actual authors of this union's Constitution stated, repeatedly, frankly, any law that infringes or nullifies a right can, what? Be abrogated by the citizen with impugnity. It's only "radical" because dura lex sine jusiticia reigns once again.

I'm all for "law" that is "prudentia", i.e. for prudence or good; false laws pretending to be for public protection and other nonsense but really serve to erect unlawful monopolies, guilds, business protections, etc., are deprivations of rights under the colors of law--and those who make and enforce them deserve to be federally arrested and thrown down a hole as the Federal Code requires.

I live in Colorado, btw, notorious for this: the excuse here is that the cabs are a public utility. Strange that if I give a neighbor a lift for free it's legal but if he pays for gas it's technically and suddenly not. (Obviously they don't typically prosecute that, but selective enforcement to evade court scrutiny by ensuring the proofs the laws are not laws at all just invalidates the law in the first place.) That what millions do here daily, with insurance--including coverage of other occupants--is suddenly a public utility if any money or value, whatsoever, changes hands.

Go learn to think before citing dura lex without context. Even the Romans didn't put-up (long) with that bullshit. We just happen to be drunk under the stupor of "order" by force rather than...actual order. And it's damn time the boomers start getting off'd by their dementia to start eliminating their pseudo-sophisticate influences in that regard.

Moreover, you do realize the public figures who like to say "the laws the law" OPENLY MOCK THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY 'LAW' BESIDES FORCE--that is, in the law schools, don't you?

I DO get to choose the laws that I have to follow: if a "law" says to murder you--not going to do it; help you do it to or aid someone else in that, not going to do it; take your rights? not going to do it; assist any government actor in it? not going to do it.

Grow a pair.

Not really, as people who obsess over correctness tend to be idiots trying to gain acceptance among others of their kind.

When used without sarcasm it is also called "synecdoche", and it's part of the reason why the word for "step" is not the word for "no" in French, why various words that had the exact opposite meaning in English at their earliest record.

Moreover dropping parts strengthens the assertion, another common feature in English.

The basic feature, though, is the statement is psychologically understood, and understood almost universally--wan[na] :)~ know the opinion of people in China recently?

This is like all the fuddy duddies screaming "don't start with a conjunction" in my ears--then having funny citing Shakespear, Milton, the Bible...and everyone else; or "don't end with a preposition..."; or nowadays even dumber statements like forbidding the semi-colon.

The immigrants I know who speak 6 languages including English--one nearing the "I'm a UN translator" phase after self-teaching English at age 8 (having come here as a refugee granted asylum and escaped not only the ethnic cleansing that Clinton's bombing was meant to stop but also Clinton's bombing in Eastern Europe) though she already spoke 3 other languages (and nowadays I don't ask the number anymore) always becomes breathless at the bullshit asserted by the older generations in the US.

The solution is "get a specialized lawyer." A buddy of mine has been in training in the law since 9 years old (dad is the Constitutional variety) and then added an Accounting Degree (+CPA+[like 30 other sets of letters) and is not a fraud analyst. A doctor stuck a stethoscope in his wife's ear and billed a "surgery" to her insurance, BIG mistake...now they get free ear care.

Samuel Gompers would like to have a word with you.

Microsoft identified malware that had escaped Vitalwerks' detection. Upon notification and review of the evidence, Vitalwerks took immediate corrective action allowing Microsoft to identify victims of this malware.

Yeah, if waking up one day to find that most of your business has been handed over to another company is what passes for "notification" these days. I hope Microsoft paid them handsomely.

For the land of the free, judicial misbehavior never seems to be mentioned when due a mention while it is blared from the rooftops when they rule correctly. IT SEEMS to me that the most important target of criticism here is missing since Microsoft went to--and got--an order by an authority, who should have had the competence to know better than to seize the private property of one and hand it over to another private party. Then again, everyone is afraid of the oligarchy of robes.

You mean "subject"? When Parliament began using "citizen" in Britain it still conferred or recognized almost no actual (meaning, inalienable) rights to the British subjects. Your EU citizenship meanwhile has guaranteed that the State must respect that you have rights at all (http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/08/british-citizenship-vs-european-citizenship/). Best of wishes for you in the difficulties that lie ahead.

One headed down a positivist trajectory, setting a trend; one went the other way. The point is that "old men in the sky" bespeaks a lot of foolishness. Whether theistic or otherwise, philosophies that impose constraints and morals, mysteries and hard things to consider on how to be moral vs. simply succeed, always have a place in human endeavors, whether scientific or political, business or personal (though I see the latter as a somewhat false dichotomy). When these things are forgotten not only are bets on constraints on harms off (see China), the foundations of each of those spheres get undermined and their purposes becomes only "success", whatever that is in the eyes of the actor.