They do. I know cops who do. You, and the media in general, just aren't listening unless it supports your agenda.
For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior, making them every bit as worthless as the "bad" ones.
Even if this were true (which it is not), the number of police officers and police departments who do not condone this behavior FAR outweigh the number who do.
I agree, and I generally prefer direct-to-voicemail over the traditional wait-through-4-rings. Sometimes I need to leave someone a quick note without having to interrupt what they are doing.
Sure, I appreciate texting and I use it (very often when you include email, which is essentially the same communication concept). There are just situations that texting is much worse than leaving a quick voice message, such as while driving or using a crappy keyboard like on a game console.
Also this is completely wrong:
Given that Java is older than C# by more than a decade
Java 1 was released in 1996, C# 1 was released in 2002.
Of course Java was ahead of C# before C# was released. C# started out as a Java clone. Java was arguably ahead of C# for about two versions or so, although
C# 3+ leaped ahead by most measures with functional programming concepts such as lambdas and LINQ, as well as duck typing and more. Java has recently improved in many of these areas but I don't yet feel Java's implementation is superior.
On the other hand if you are really into functional programming, look at Scala for the JVM or F# for
Where I live, savings accounts are generally in the category of "withdraw immediately without penalty". And, as a result, the interest rate is at or lower than inflation.
Anyway, the point is that inflation does not cause people to hoard. Even in your case, where you have an account that has a higher interest rate than inflation, inflation isn't causing you to hoard. You are hoarding in spite of inflation.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Please provide a link to a savings account that you can immediately withdraw from without penalty that also higher interest than inflation.
This reminds me of a situation my wife dealt with a few years back. She was on a pain medication that was really the only one she had found that provided the relief she needed to get through the day. But it suddenly stopped being sold or prescribed one day.
That day, the FDA banned the drug. It cited a study that found that the drug was linked with something bad, I think maybe suicidal thoughts.
But then she found that the study was produced by the company that made the brand name version of the drug, which had competition by generics by that point.
Also, the brand name company had just created a new similar pain medication that had new patent protections. The FDA ruling effectively killed the competition of this new drug.
Mind you, that new drug is ineffective for my wife's pain. Also, the study was done over a very short period of time, had a weak sample size, and when you look at its bias, there's no way that study would have made it into a real medical journal. But would the FDA accept it (presumably along with a check with lots of pretty zeroes)? Absolutely.
Well, that's exactly what I did, dropped 500 calories per day. No noticeable results over 4 months, when generally one should expect around 1 pound/week loss.
(And I'm nowhere near the 1000 calorie limit.)
Fair enough, YMMV.
All of that said, I am just pointing out that the chart can be correct while someone still could make out "jaggies". The idea of a "retina" resolution is a bit of a myth because of things like we have pointed out, and thus we can't take that chart at face value to know whether the result is acceptable.
I can clearly see a line of white pixels between lines of black pixels at 8ft.
This is a bad justification. To see why, try this experiment:
1) Create an image of a black background with a single 1px-width white line.
2) Set up a camera at or beyond retina distance.
3) Take a photo and see if you can see the white line in the photo.
I took this to an extreme, using a (crappy) 8 MP phone camera, from a distance 9 times retina distance (11.5" tablet at 1366x768 resolution from a distance of around 18 feet). The resulting photograph still displayed a visible line.
The line was faint and quite blurry, mind you. But I think it demonstrates my point, that things smaller than retina resolution don't suddenly become invisible. And this is particularly true when looking at something that is white on a black background.
Most cloud providers are orders of magnitude more secure than company IT.
Not sure about your eyes, but the graphic appears to be pretty close to the values I'm getting when calculating when the resolution is better than "retina" for most people.
Of course, video compression can alter your results. And sub-pixel motion can cause moiré patterns that are quite noticeable even on retina displays.