Depends on if you are making a universally quantified or an existentially quantified claim. Unless you are stating that another person's anecdotal evidence is not evidence for you, which is understandable.
Yes, thats a good way to put it. I wonder what his other 4 coworkers think.
I don't know all the details, but this reads like you aren't correctly identifying who is IT.
When your printer breaks, or you need a new computer installed, you call IT.
When you work at a manufacturing plant and you need software for the machines, that's not IT. That's development. It sounds to me like you have an IT department of one person (you) and that your development team is helping out with IT. "Projects with deadlines" is not usually a phrase you hear from IT unless it's a project like upgrading everyone's software. It sounds to me like you are letting management downplay your contribution with incorrect job titles.
Vote for 100% fewer patents and you can have any of these options that you want.
Even the incumbent makers of hammers would be happier living in a world where it isn't illegal to make a better hammer. They might moan and cry about it, and pretend like their case is special, but everyone is worse off when policy becomes "hinder technological progress to protect the economy of old technology".
Presumably the poster is trying to say that making the software open source is promoting the technology available to everyone, and since it is progress in technology, there is no need to protect the makers of the old costly technology.
Consider this, what if you had a magic button that you could push, and if you did then free versions of software would be created that provide the same functionality as every piece of proprietary software ever written? Would you push the button?
This is what happens when you spend money that you didn't have to earn.
If you are depending on cops to protect you being being "hit", then if someone decides to "hit" you, then you will be in for a big surprise. Police aren't bodyguards. They aren't magical leprechauns that jump out of fire hydrants and save you. You might be able to defend yourself, you might have hired help to defend you, but the cops aren't going to do anything besides ask you questions.
Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion. It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option. Given your sample story it is clear that the b) option is the correct one since it best summarizes the story. If your kid missed that question, then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story. So the test seems to have done a good job corrctly evaluating your child.
Any decent writing curriculum would have taught you that titles should not summarize stories. What was that collection of books called, "a bunch of misfits deliver a ring south", or was it called "The Lord of the Rings" ? Go find a collection of titles, and see if any of them summarize the story they identify. (B) is the worst answer for a title to a story. (C) is actually the most likely title to be chosen for a story. But that still doesn't make any of them right. OP is correct, it is a very bad question.
Question #2 is indeed asking your child to come up with reasonable extensions on the story.
Really? Do you have access to some original form of the test that the rest of us do not? Otherwise, the question is not asking for extensions at all. The most correct answer is probably (A). He didn't change his socks when they got wet, he changed them when he got home. If he hadn't arrived home, he wouldn't have changed his socks. "Why" questions never have only 1 answer.
You should be celebrating a test that has accurately found a weakness in your child’s abilities, and working with your child to better develop these skills.
Well then I have something for you to celebrate too! Here's the good news. There is a common mistake people make. Two people encounter a description. The first sees and ambiguity, and the second does not. The second thinks he's smarter than the first because he is unaware of the ambiguity. The first is actually smarter because he can see the problem.
Guess which one you are, and guess which one the OP's child is? Fortunately, with the sort of parenting that child is getting, I think he'll be fine. On the other hand, you still have celebrating to do.
...it may be a FACTOR, the impact of that factor is the crucial question. It may well be zero. It may well be quite a lot.
Shouldn't the factor with the least influence be the multiplicative identity, 1, not 0?
This isn't business.
Hmm, I shouldn't have said "all immigrants work hard", but I think you can still understand the idea I was trying to present.
All immigrants work hard. I strongly doubt your work is harder than working on farms, or more useful than providing affordable food. Yet these people don't get the title of citizenship.
I completely agree with you that working in a competitive economy is something that contributes to everyone else around you. Considering how many people don't do that (I'm thinking about those who get privileged easy jobs), it is certainly true that it is beneficial for you to be present.
But we both know that hard work and contributing to an economy don't earn a person citizenship. Plenty of people are harder working and better educated than you or me and don't get citizenship. I know those with college educations and worked harder than you can imagine who can't get citizenship on technicalities even.
More importantly, plenty of people don't work hard and are just born with citizenship. "Citizenship" is just a title awarded to people which grants them rights, it is not something that is earned. It especially does not justify the condescending position that citizens take towards those who are here without citizenship.
They are literally immigrants without citizenship. That phrase is 100% accurate, it captures everyone who is meant to be captured by it and doesn't capture anyone else.
The problem most will have with the phrase is the question of "whose fault is it?" that the choice of phrase leaves open. If you say "illegal immigrant" then it automatically assumes some criminal intent on the part of the immigrant. If you say "without citizenship" then it leaves open the question of "whose fault is it that they don't have citizenship?"
Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain. There is no royalty is in the US.
On a related but independent note: (rant begins here)
How the hell is it your business if someone wants to live in the US? If they find a landlord who will rent to them and a job that will pay them, then it is absolutely no one else's concern. At most, it would be a zoning issue for counties trying to handle local population size. Even that is a stretch.
But in return for this paranoia, what have you gained? Suppose one day that you want to go live in France or Korea or somewhere else. Well guess what, you can't. Because they have the same policy you have, maybe in 10 years after you've given up tons of money and dignity, and then maybe you can somehow be treated as a second class citizen.
Thank god for you though, you have no intention of living somewhere besides where you were born. And you are totally fine living in this cage you've built for everyone.
If it became generally accepted that people should have the right to live in whatever state or country they want, this would be the single most important right any human would have. It would do far more to protect your other rights than even "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press", because when all else fails you can just leave to live with like minded people.
Linux runs on old hardware.
Linux runs on embedded hardware.
Linux runs on XBOX.
Linux runs on a toaster.
Some geek out there is smugly telling his friends "I made Linux run on a US Navy Destroyer".
Then, while not strictly speaking an issue of Constitutional jurisdiction, there is the whole issue of perjury in front of congress.