You should stick to not answering posts. There was no content in your sentences. You talked about how smart you are without being willing to show evidence. Instead you resorted to a personal attack. As of this time, I would 'not' like to subscribe to your newsletter.
You keep answering 'why' questions with 'how' answers. "Why are we here?" is a completely different question from 'How did we come to be here?"
Now, from the context of your post you do give an answer the 'why' question. "There is no reason other than random happenstance." I'm not sure that disagrees with the parents statement that 'why' is a philosophical question.
Yes, (replying to GrandParent, but agreeing with Parent.)
Can you explain why it would be better on the server side? I naturally assumed client side. "Get SmallScreen version of Picture." It would then be scaled by the Browser to fit the size determined by the layout.
I don't think that you'd change the layout based on which images were selected. Everything would look exactly the same, just the byte-size/quality of the image file would be different.
You're not supposed to close the windows. They just stay open all the time. (You don't even have to save them, it just keeps them up 'unsaved' the next time you come back.
That's why I use Sublime Text. It has a 'vi' mode that works very well. (Well, it does the most common functions, but if you're a grand-master vi wizard you'll easily find things it doesn't do.)
That was the primary reason I allowed myself to try it. 'come for the 'vi' stay for everything else.' The good news is that it's a top-notch editor even without vi. The 'overview' slider on the right side is brilliant. There's a vibrant 'plugin community', and it's very customizable. Also it's multi-platform so I'm using exactly the same Editor on my Windows box at work as well as my Gnome sessions at home.
(I still use vi in my terminals.)
We purchased a large ERP to 'centralize' and 'homogenize' our data. Instead if disparate systems trying to interface, we wanted all our divisions to use the same system. We had IT research the different options with occasional feedback, and they picked one, and we started implement it.
It turns out that we had disparate systems for a reason, and the new ERP system didn't fit into any of them. We adjusted models to fit the best practices of the ERP as best we could, but that only got us so far. At the end of the day the ERP was nothing but a database (SQL Server) and all the day to day operations were done with custom built applications interface through API's and ODBC. Occasionally, (but rarely) there will be a business need that happens to be implemented natively by the ERP, but it's not something we count on.
One of the original suggestions was that we just 'roll our own' solution. In the end, we did, but we first saddled ourselves with a large pricetag and mostly useless support contract.
""Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.""
This is my biggest question about this whole thing. Why is it Google's job? If they want to be 'forgotten' or 'taken off the internet' then they have to be taken off the internet, not the search engines. The most Google would be affected is by making sure they don't show up as 'cached' results. However, if the original article still exists, that's hardly Google's fault.
It the EU wants to make an unenforceable decision about a stupid request, I think they should at least be forced to deal with the consequences, and not just harangue search engines (i.e easy targets.)
His is wooden. The ones for sale are all-u-min-nium.
I just wonder if they come with a cord. I'm not a big 'wireless keyboard' fan.
Do Tesla's have keys? I think it would be pretty awesome to back up the security with a physical item. So, when you lock your car after too many failures, the smart-phone remote access is just completely disabled until you use the physical key to unlock the door.
I suppose you could do the same thing with the key-fob and it wouldn't be any less secure than the key-fob already is.
That would be quite strong defense against brute forcing the PIN, and I don't think it would be that annoying since....how often do you remote-access your car anyway?
A 'cycle' doesn't constitute a thought. I would be willing to bet that a human brain can actually process speech faster than a computer can. (not sure how you'd prove that.)
Computers aren't sentient NOW because they aren't fast enough yet. At least, that's a staple of science fiction. It's only when the computer gets 'big' enough...gets 'fast' enough that they can start to be sentient. So saying when a computer becomes sentient it will suddenly "think/talk" magnitudes faster than us is a non-sequitur.
Now, what they will have is photographic memories. They'll have a huge advantage in the 'random access memory recall' area. I assume it's possible they'll be better at 'hand-eye' coordination. (Not that she had any hands in 'her'.)
"I expect to die first."
No, you just have to get it out of the atmosphere and aimed right. I'm pretty sure mach 7 is good enough for 'escape velocity'.
Instead of hinting, why don't you tell us what "100% from both" actually means? You've said twice that it's a perfectly fine thing to say but you haven't attempted to explain or define it.
Also, here's a hint, when you say 100%, it's math. (explanation: Say something like 'completely' or some other 'non-math' term if you wish to express something that can't be expressed by math.)
Yeah, my bad. I knew that when I typed it as well. "This should probably just be infinite..." but I didn't change it.
I think there are other inputs as well, so "both" don't add up to 100%.