Is there a way for individual users to remove certs from these browsers without waiting for vendors to do so?
I find it interesting that the court insists that Google no longer returns the page with the negative review. Rather the court should force the review site to remove the review then the links should disappear from Google (and I assume the Google cached copy too after a while.) It seems an unfair burden to me to force Google to take ownership for any of the content on site that it indexes using purely algorithmic processes.
The whole idea of an ESRB is a joke, why should it matter who heads it?
I'm not defending the rich. I'm speaking up for what's fair and right even if it ultimately isn't to my economic benefit. I believe in speaking the truth even when it's not the best thing for me personally.
Wait you're telling me that if I make more money that I'll have more money at the end of the month? That's incredible! That's amazing! Why don't we tell more people this? We should really get the message out.
One of the things that I really hate about some journalism today is a failure to ask the obvious question. Could someone please explain under what legal theory an agency (state or local police) can sign an NDA and claim the NDA allows them to fail to meet a provision of law. I would think the law trumps the NDA and that it wouldn't be legal or perhaps unenforceable to sign such an NDA when you are required to release records under state or local law.
I fully understand the implication for archival purposes of this failure and I'm not happy but it seems she's trying to rectify this thought I'd rather a national archivist select which emails get archived not her staff. However,I kind of yawn at this aspect of things: not good but not worth getting in a tissy over.
My greater concern was if any of the communication was classified or unclassified but sensitive. I mean over the course of her tenure she's got to have had some emails like that. Even if none of it was classified or sensitive, does she understand the implications this has for national security particularly should she become president and do something this boneheaded? She's gotta know she was doing it and it was wrong.
Pick Objective-C. The language is small and simple to understand. If you're already a good programmer with knowledge of C you can learn it in 2 weeks to a month. The frameworks will take longer but the language you can learn in a few weeks. C++ on the other hand will take you forever to learn, it's a large complex language.
I do. It's not that difficult, it just requires an attention to all the details from the software to the Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't make me a genius, but it's not that hard.
No that's not what I said. By "public benefit" I mean the government (state local federal) can't provide a right or a benefit (education, social security, medicare, unemployment) to a segment of the population. If Microsoft wants to provide their own after school programs or summer camp that is their right (and we could argue separately if that would be a good thing.) I'm specifically talking about things our government provides.
No it's still not acceptable. If they are doing that it's not acceptable. Make opportunity and programs available to all. If there are resource limitations then have a process for selecting beneficiaries that is gender neutral. Skills based testing or lottery.
Actually I was. I had no role models and no encouragement. I was ignored. I was ostracized by my peers. In high school I was told I didn't have the math skills to continue in the honors math track. Not once, but twice. I insisted I was going to stay in that track. I had to take summer school to so. I was also moved from honors biology to regular because "I wasn't honors material". I ended up get a 93% after I was moved. There were universities to which I wasn't accepted. I was touched inappropriately by my professor when I tried to get help with a class I wasn't getting. I've failed classes. I've been told I couldn't take classes that I needed to graduate. But I didn't give up or quit. This is what I want to do and I'm good at it.
No, we get it, we just don't think it's OK for you to accept funding for a public benefit with the condition that it discriminates against a part of the population. It wouldn't be acceptable to do this for boys it's not acceptable to do it for girls.
Yes and this is important. We need bad examples to teach people that bad things can happen and you want to do the right thing to avoid them. For instance you don't want civil servents to collude with politicians to jack up their retirement benefits to unsustainable levels so that they can get a benefit in collective bargaining agreements with politicians who will be out of office when the benefits are due. Too big to fail is likewise a problem with wall street. The fear of a city failing is what ought to keep retires from taking an "I don't care" attitude to city management. If civil workers and retires know that their failure to encourage a responsible path for their government will mean possible loss of their retirement they will be quite effective advocates. Besides their already was a safety net for retires who loose their pension. They'd still get social security. True that's not great but it is meant to keep them from starving and the undesirable outcome is necessary for the feedback system to work. I find it problematic to advocate that we need to prevent people from investing so we can protect them from bad outcomes because we lack the resolve to let them fail. Failure is an important part of many systems and our failure aversion doesn't benefit us as a society. If we're going to eliminate the down side to market based systems should we really be surprised when they don't work? Bondholders should have lost money and lots of it. After all they were investing where there is always a risk of loss of investment.
If they borrowed money in the form of municipal bonds to get this done and it doesn't pay off and they default or declare bankruptcy why should the state bail them out? The creditors who bought the bonds should take a haircut for making a bad investment. Why should the state bail out those investors? Isn't that how municipal bond markets are suppose to work? Isn't that why they're private, won't private investors look at what the bonds are for and make a judgement if it's a good investment of their money or not? Who are you to tell the bond holders how to invest their money?
I don't see this as that different from a municipal water system. The town, through it's elected officials, chose to implement this plan. Perhaps the citizens voted for this system knowing that initially it wouldn't break even but think that it was good for the town as a whole. Much as I might vote for a municipal water system even though I get my water from a well and don't want to subscribe to the water system. I realize that it's good for the town and therefore good for me indirectly even if I don't directly take advantage of it. I support bond measures for schools even though I don't have children and don't plan too and so do some who send their children to private schools. Who are we, not part of the town, to question their wisdom and judgement from afar. Perhaps the town made the judgement that as the internet grows and government services migrate to the net, more people will sign up and it will be revenue neutral or even make them money down the road. I support the idea the local government is the best and I see no reason to over turn their judgement here.