The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.
Anyone else read that as "Shoggoth" and assume THATS how they came to Earth?
For systemd to appear anywhere there has to be a benefit, and there isn't one.
I can't handle 40 hours of sedation every week for the rest of my life. I chose to work in the defense industry specifically because I thought it would afford me opportunities to work on exciting high-tech shit. That bubble's been burst for some time now.
So a bank or similar isn't what you need. Fine. The GP's point is still valid: it sounds like your problem isn't software development, it's your job. There are plenty of really enjoyable software jobs around, for whatever your definition of "enjoyable" is (assuming you actually like coding, and you probably do otherwise you wouldn't have liked it in the past). You just need to find one, which means you first need to figure out what kind of environment will fulfill your needs.
Personally, I'm in my mid-40s, still writing code, and I expect to be gainfully and happily writing code until I'm ready to retire. I've gotten progressively pickier about what kind of place I want to work, but that's okay. In my case, my primary criterion is the number of idiots I work with; as long as that is sufficiently low, I can find challenging and interesting problems in any industry and problem space.
But why have the many successors to jpg that provide better lossy compression not caught on?
Without getting into a full-blown Doctoral Thesis, it's usually because either they suffer performance issues, or don't do nearly as good a job of preserving the visual integrity of the source image. JPG is a good balance of speed, quality preservation, and size of the compressed file.
Nah, I think it's mostly because JPEG is good enough. JPEG2000, for example, also provides perfectly acceptable performance and quality, with significantly-reduced file sizes. But unlike JPEG, JPEG2000 decoders aren't already available everywhere. The slightly-reduced file size isn't sufficient justification for the risk that some users might not be able to see the photo. An improved JPEG encoder helps (a little) with file size without incurring the need for a new decoder, so it's immediately useful.
The last ten years or so,, I've found that I just don't care that much any more about music. I actually listen to a lot of music these days, but that's an environmental issue, not because I like it. I listen to music pretty much all day every day while at work because I work in an open plan office and the headphones, and the music they play, are the way I eliminate distractions so I can focus. I don't really listen to the music, though... I have no idea at any given time what song played last, for example. I do, however, find that I get tired of repetitive music. Subscription Internet radio is perfect... I can start it playing from a vast collection of music, almost guaranteed I'll get few if any repeats, and completely guaranteed the music won't be interrupted by people talking (which would distract me).
When I'm driving or something and want some audio to actually pay attention to, I listen to audiobooks, not music.
This is a good thing for anybody who believes in the rule of law. Laws should be written to clearly put those governed on notice as to what behavior is prohibited. Pervy or not, if the photographer was within the actual letter of the law, he shouldn't be be held criminally liable for doing something which was not prohibited. The solution is not to "interpret" the law to extend beyond its text; the solution is to fix the bad law.
If laws can be "interpreted" to go beyond their plain meanings, then it becomes difficult for those subject to them to figure out what is prohibited. Not only is it patently unfair to hold someone accountable for an action that wasn't listed as prohibited, there is a strong constitutional precedent for holding it "void for vagueness." See, e.g., Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
These sorts of announcements have the effect of freezing developers and keeping them from moving to superior technology.
They would have done nothing if not for AMD and now they're going to steal AMD's thunder.
This sort of thing makes my blood boil.
If you're a developer out there, please, don't let Microsoft get away with this.
After years of decline, US oil production began to rise again in 2009 with fracking technology and the increases since have been astounding.
This oil boom has kept gasoline prices in check and has probably helped the economy from slipping back into recession.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel."
Sounds like a wonderful place. I'll take 2 derms and slot a couple of 'softs, please.
If all that money didn't increase total employment, then GDP could go up while the same number of people stayed home out of work.
The increase in congestion is actually a good sign. It suggests that the employment situation might finally be improving.
Some Millenial expat dot-com dbag offed herself?
> Wrong, but it does match the public misconception. It's commonly believed that he's sitting on nearly half a billion dollars, and facts to the contrary won't even slow down those who will try to collect.
So where did those coins go then if you say he doesn't have them.
This is why I don't own any Apple products, no respect for users.
Seems like they are showing the utmost respect for the owner. It contains private data. If she had wanted to be sure the family got the device and the data she'd have included the password. Most likely she "bequeathed" it because the relatives got everything she owned, not that the device was mentioned specifically.
Your answer is wrong. It's a very uncommon form of wrong, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.
No police officer is ever going to force you to answer their questions.