When you say you want to work together, it doesn't mean you agreed to specific plans together.
Just like, if somebody says, "we should go to coffee sometime," it doesn't mean that you have plans to go to coffee together. It means you have a shared desire to schedule that activity at a future time.
The person claiming a specific agreement when only a general spirit of cooperation was offered, that is the person lying.
The rocket market isn't just a "failing" of NASA, they were confident that those rockets would be on the market, so they accepted having to use them for a few years in order to be able to afford other things on their limited budget.
Especially now that there are multiple new rockets coming to market to compete in that space, it doesn't look like a failing at all. It looks like they have quality analysts, actually.
They didn't trip over their shoelaces and accidentally end up having to buy Russian rockets.
No. No, it really is the flamethrower that frightens me. If the asshole didn't have a flamethrower, I wouldn't be frightened.
Right, but if he puts it down and picks up a pointy stick, the fear of him remains. The flamethrower won't look very scary just sitting there unless you're exceptionally fearful. It is certainly still something to be concerned with regarding safety, just like a pile of dynamite or a propane tank.
But even if the flamethrower remains a safety concern, getting poked with the stick is much scarier. And that too goes away as soon as he puts it down.
Attaching the fear to the tool instead of the operator is pretty silly here. Especially since the tool has such limited range. A train or airplane is more dangerous.
That's exceptionally derpy, pointing to internet comments to claim your view isn't extreme or unusual.
It is also particularly... odd for a German to saying things like that about Poland. If Poland deserves something bad for "CIA torture prisons," I guess we should be asking what you deserve for Germany's much more significant... history regarding torture. I guess you'd just blame Poland for being invaded, since you're blaming them for what the US did there in secret.
You seem like a nazi sympathizer to me. I'm not surprised you chafe at the troops. But you're pretty clueless about the world you whine about. Hating America won't stop your neighbors from protesting troop reductions.
Most algorithms are not patentable in the US either, post-Alice. I don't doubt thousands of patents have been issued, but that doesn't automatically make them valid.
If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.
This is it.
I hope this fails, and i'm an NRA member who is often caught saying things like "from my cold dead hand"
The only time I ever used a flame thrower was to put out a forest fire. I don't doubt that the deer were frightened of me, but in my defense I was trying to protect their home.
Why are NRA members so dim-witted? Do you even understand your own propaganda, or do you just spew it like a mindless zombie? It isn't the flame-thrower that scares people, it is the asshole waving it around.
Gravel may be all you can grow, but that isn't a garden. That isn't even a rock garden.
When the big changeover from SVN being the #1 VCS to git taking the crown happened, SVN did not have those features. You couldn't check in changes without talking to the server. If the server was down, you'd have to wait and check in all your changes at once. That was one of the big features of git that had people excited; they could still do local checkins. The only thing they were missing when the server was down was sharing the code and handling any conflicting changes. But actually checking the changes in doesn't get messed up.
Sure, after "everybody" switched, then SVN finally added the needed parts of de-centralization. I actually enjoyed using svn more than git, but I sure don't regret switching. If nobody had switched, we'd still be without modern features...
Reminds me of Carmageddon, the traffic disaster that finished ahead of schedule and without any disaster.
Get better road workers. I recommend putting the engineers in charge.
This is an example of what I get:
The general theory is that if it costs them more than they think the policy saved them, then it will moderate their behavior because they'll have wished they made more money, and they would have.
The problem with small penalties isn't related to the company being able to survive them, but to the fact that the penalties for things are often smaller than the perceived profit from having done it. Here, there is no obvious large profit. If they reduced turnover by some percent that would save them money, but not huge amounts. It might not have to be a huge fine.
Unless the court is going to slap them with a $40+ billion fine, Amazon will have reaped in magnitudes more in revenue from these workers than they will pay out in a fine.
That presumes that they have a worker shortage, and if they could just hire more workers, they'd make more money. It is highly unlikely for that to be true.
More likely, they already hire the number of workers they want, they could hire more workers at the same pay rate, and keeping unhappy people from quitting doesn't actually increase their profits at all.
Companies don't wait for a cost/benefit analysis to put asshole bullshit into the contract. A lot of companies start off with that sort of thing just because the lawyer said it is a standard practice, without ever having a business analysis, or even an actual legal concern.
If the company actually sues you, these types of cases are easy to get a lawyer for on contingency for the counter-suit.
It is a tort to cause somebody to be unable to work. Trying to ban them from the industry they have experience in, when they're not a worker with specialized knowledge about the company's professional whatthewhat, is a giant counter-suit.
And, did they give these workers a pay raise when they added the clause, that they can argue in court was worth 18 months of work? No? Then it isn't enforceable in any state, because of the basic common-law requirement for contracts to be based on a "consideration" given. If they argue some tiny amount counts as consideration, they'll be admitting to an unfair business practice that denies somebody the right to work.
They wouldn't just lose, they'd get shafted on the counter-suit. Except that they would actually just pay lots of money and settle.
This is a clause added entirely because Amazon's lawyers are assholes. Luckily, asshole lawyers don't get to file suits without the permission of the senior execs.
I predict somebody will quit, and then sue them for 18 months of pay because they're only experienced in warehouse work. They'll not only get an easy settlement, (these contracts are only legal for professional employees, not for laborers) they'll also throw it out for everybody else. They'll still probably have to pay settlements to a bunch of people who quit or were fired during the policy, and then didn't find work immediately afterwards.
They should really hire some competent lawyers instead of these "full asshole" guys, because they're creating a giant pile of needless liability for nothing.
If it was really semantic content, then your client (browser) could walk the graph of related (advertised) documents from those links and provide all sorts of information. For the advertising to be semantic, it would need to be wrapped in some sort of standard API or descriptive (semantic) access method that flagged it as advertising. You could then, in a good client, turn off all the advertising links, and even substitute dictionary entries with the same keyword.
Semantic access is exactly that; providing the data for the client to make decisions based on, so that you can choose between different things that have the same keywords, depending on their meaning. If it isn't associated with a new browser feature, it probably isn't a semantic document at all, unless it is just a REST-based catalog that is easily client-walkable. Then it might be primitive "semantic web."
Well, if it was actual semantic content provided as such to an aware browser, then it would decrease annoyance by giving the user more control.
Unfortunately for the summary, links are not in fact semantic content. You can have more, or less, links, and you haven't done anything with regards to semantic content. What you need is computer-understood meta-data, including links, that is separate from the main content, follows standard conventions, and can be used by the client software to give semantic information to the user.
Links at the end of a story... that is just links at the end of a story. I know it is amazing, but the jargon in this case is actual jargon, not just a meaningless fluff word.
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
