If you live somewhere with sufficient wind. In my part of
If you live somewhere with sufficient wind. In my part of
Ambiguity: "Thou shalt not murder"? Well, is that killing I just did *really* murder, or just killing? What if it was an accident? What if he was trying to kill me? What if he just threatened to kill me? What if my property (dog) killed him? What if I told my dog to kill him?
Lawyers: Lawyers are multipliers of ambiguity.
Politicians: Politicians look like they're doing something by passing a law, even if it's a law that doesn't actually do what they hope or claim it will. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Really? I've driven in near whiteout conditions, fog so thick I could barely see past the end of my hood, and a freak rainstorm that dumped so much rain I literally couldn't see past the end of my hood. I coped with all in the same way. I slowed down a LOT. The last was especially worrisome as I had to completely stop on a road with a 45 MPH speed limit. Normally, I'd call that insane, but I LITERALLY could not see the road anymore. Forward motion at all was fairly soon going to mean driving into a ditch. I had no choice but assume and hope any other cars on the road also had to stop. I don't see how they could have done anything else.
Personally, I think all such vehicles are going to have to have a very basic failsafe that alerts the occupants LOUDLY that it's about to stop, then does so if driving or equipment conditions become inadequate for navigation. That's all people do anyway, really. Conditions too bad? Pull over. Injured/incapacitated? Pull over if you can.
Lately, I think you're lucky if the cars around you have situation awareness extending as far as the brake lights in front of them. Too often it extends not beyond their smartphone.
Well, technically there was a ton of support from Congress, considering Congress passed the actual law in the first place, and therefore provided funding for the entire thing.
It's more like there was one part of congress very much in favor of Obamacare, and one part very much against, and the in-favor group carried the day.
There's a kernel of truth in here.
If someone writes software for you for free and you want something else from them, pay them (or someone else) to write it. If you don't want it badly enough to pay for it, write it yourself.
For YEARS there's a been a file named INSTALL_SOURCE or something like it. Indeed, there's a section on that, but a lot of the file is how to download and install precompiled binaries. It's a little thing, but it just bugs me ever time I have to skip past the stuff that shouldn't be in there to get the stuff that should.
I like Javadoc (or Doxygen, which I use often), but read the source is horrible advice. Source code can be anywhere from elegant and clear to $DIETY awful spaghetti. Source code tells you precisely what the code does, not what it was meant to do (sometimes those differ and we call them bugs) or why it was done that way.
i don't think the spin being placed here as it being an 'invasion' of privacy is accurate here considering my prior statement
you should thank google for helping to stop people invading the child's privacy by putting a stop to sharing of images like this
Actually, I was thinking the perhaps we shouldn't jump the gun because maybe Google was troubleshooting something and discovered the image accidentally.
The hash table of a lot of things could be a problem. I have a relative who sends me political memes. How hard is it to hash those and get a list of known Conservatives/Liberals/etc. McCarthy wasn't that long ago. Not too long ago being gay got you kicked out of the military. Drug laws are in flux. The list of things which are good or bad depending on either time or your own opinion goes on and on. The post office doesn't get to open your mail and compare the contents to a list of known bad things. Why does Google?
So, your argument is that because a bad thing is probably going to happen eventually, we may as well just do it now?
I wonder if he's in any condition to ask if he wants to be transported to the US. If I volunteered to go try to cure people with Ebola, I think the last thing I'd want to do is bring a body-weight ebola culture back to a major US city.
And yes it is an excellent idea, because it gives the CDC a living "test tube" of the actual active Ebola virus, not a sample of infected blood collected, and shipped on ice.
Right, because it's absolutely impossible to ship a plane full of CDC scientists and equipment. Far, far, better to ship a live human body full of ebola over and to a densely populated area. What could possibly go wrong?
How do you plan to measure this, exactly? I get your point that the end goal is competent adults, not test performance per se, but I've firsthand seen how my own kids can fail to get a concept well enough, and that leads to not getting the next concept, and so on. If you're not good at addition, you won't be good at multiplication, and so on through high school and you're just HOSED when you need to be good at trigonometry.
Come on, people. Science works. Things that work are...testable. If you're advocating some educational strategy, but reject the notion that it's testable, you're rejecting basic science. If that describes you, kindly keep your hands off education policy.
I don't think it's corruption, necessarily. Some people are just rabidly pro-Apple. Some people don't (yet) get that technology isn't an education silver bullet. When you get people who think technology is a silver bullet AND love Apple products, you get things like this.
I don't mind dealing with computers. I don't mind dealing with people. I hate dealing with computers that pretend to be people. "Wait a minute while I look that up for you." (pretend typing noise) NOOOOOO thanks. If people want a more human experience, they're saying they want actual humans, not computers that pretend to be humans.