Trolling grammar nazis just makes you a different kind of idiot
Well ganjadude. May I call you ganjadude? I imagine that is what your friends on 'your side' call you, right? 'ganjadude' sounds like that kind of a name.
You're assuming that the people who are angry about the appointment of Rice to this role are the same people who were angry about the Eich being given the CEO position at Mozilla.
You're also roughly stating that because there are other reasons to dislike Dropbox, it is inappropriate to complain about their choice of someone who has historically be pro-surveillance and supportive of state-sanctioned torture (in certain contexts, like the state doing the torturing for the US). I isn't really 'inappropriate' to complain about both the color and performance of a car, and likewise I don't think that disliking some other attribute of Dropbox reasonably precludes me complaining about their choice of board members.
I didn't much like the way that Eich was attacked for his support of Prop 8, even though I didn't agree with Prop 8. Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them.
That Rice previously demonstrated support of intensive surveillance by government does directly relate to Dropbox. I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to criticise. I think that her support of torture and extraordinary rendition makes her an unpleasant person, but I'm not sure that so much relates to her role at Dropbox.
Your obsession with what 'they' do, those dirty liberals, is slightly bizarre and makes you sound like a crazy person. Also, you're presenting a weak caricature of liberals and then pretending it is reality. That doesn't make you sound clever, or steadfast in your role as an opponent of liberals. It makes you sound like someone who is to polarized to be able to think straight.
Changing part without changing part number is something which the engineer shouldn't have done. Sure, management wouldn't let him make the change and that is bad. However, by making a change without following the basic accepted procedures meant that sleuth work needed to be done to even identify that a change had been made. The engineer clearly did something wrong. That in no way reduces the responsibility of management for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.
That said, naming names of an engineer is a really bad precedent. What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here. Do they want people to go break the guy's windows? Burn down his house? Call him in the middle of the night or deliver pizza? Apart from potentially removing the guy's livelihood for the remainder of his life because no-one wants to hire 'that guy' ever again, and a lot of abuse being targeted his way, what will this achieve?
If he did something criminal, then he should be charged. If he did something extremely incompetent then maybe membership of the engineering body should be revoked, but it isn't the place of GM to throw their engineers to the wolves.
If you sequence the material correctly, and add in filler that you are willing to cut, you can get people to say all kinds of crazy stuff in voiceover recording.
If you can get someone to say "If someone were to say 'No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust' you would have doubts about their other works. No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. I mean, who says that?" and coach them a little, you can probably use it for a convincing voiceover of them saying "No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust".
That's a pretty extreme example, but for something like this it would be relatively easy to make things seem innocuous.
Well, since there are a bunch of 'nucleus' models and even a single model can have multiple speech processing/stimulation strategies I'd question the accuracy of your statement. However, I could be wrong and you're welcome to point me to a source verifying your statement.
Look at their package insert for physicians.
This certainly is a valid issue (but the solution is not to leave people deaf, although that isn't what you're saying).
There are people who are unable to receive cochlear implants (CIs): people who have damaged auditory nerves (nerve aplasia or hypoplasia, Neurofibromatosis Type-II (NF2) or other auditory nerve tumors, severed auditory nerve due to accident etc) or abnormal cochlea (calcification due to meningitis sometimes prevents implantation, etc). There is one type of alternative implant for these individuals - the Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI) on the Cochear Nucleus - but performance of the ABI implant tends to be quite a bit poorer than the CI. This may be because of the problems which lead to needing a ABI rather than a CI but the evidence isn't yet clear on the matter. One group (NF2) almost always do more poorly than other with an ABI but no-one is quite sure why.
There are also two experimental implants (that I know of) which have been or are being tested in humans: the penetrating ABI implant (stabs electrodes into the cochlear nucleus whereas the current commercial device puts electrodes on the surface) and the penetrating Auditory Midbrain Implant (AMI). The penetrating ABI testing looked pretty good, but actually getting it in place was damn near impossible because the cochlear nucleus is basically wrapped around the brainstem in the middle of everything. The AMI seems like a cool idea, but the Inferior Colliculus (where the implant is places) is a pretty complex structure and a lot of processing has already happened by the time input would get there in a functioning auditory system. As a result, people with the experimental implants get things like having hearing at the beginning of the day that tails of across the day but returns the next day and so on.
The result is that the number of people who can't get cochlear implants or brainstem implants and are deaf from birth (which are the people for whom the deaf community is most important) is pretty small and quite geographically distributed which makes it quite isolating. As you're saying, there is a real issue with an inability for normal-hearing people to communicate with these individuals. Speech-to-text and text-to-speech engines will be helpful as they improve because it will mean that someone can use their phone as a 'translator' of a sort. As people get faster and faster at typing on phones, using a phone for textual communication can actually be pretty good too. Ideally, you would want two devices with real-time duplex transmission between them and people able to glace at the phones when typing and reading so facial expressions can still be used.
Hell, maybe that is a use for Google Glass. I type to you (where you are deaf), and you can look at me and my facial expressions while what I'm typing appears in your field of view. You then respond the same way. Or something.
Wow. That turned into a massive blag.
Shards! It has shards!
It makes complete sense. If those kids can play GTA, some of them might be inspired to go into competition with him.
You can't use plugins without a paid version of IntelliJ, which Android Studio is not.
You're still building for your family's future, even if you feel that a 45% estate tax is too much. Not saying it is or isn't, just that passing on 55% is not nothing and is not necessarily removing one of your primary motivators.
If we really want more of a meritocracy, maybe a 100% estate tax would be the way to go. (Note: I know this wouldn't work due to issues of unequal education and nepotism).
Actually, I mostly agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that simply aiming to decrease inequity is a silly goal if you don't have broader constraints such as 'so everyone can afford to eat'. The reason behind wanting to make that point was that if it is considered an improvement for inequity to decrease as a result of pushing middle wages down by allowing more H1Bs, then maybe it could be extended to minimising inequity by making almost everyone dirt poor.
I think that reducing inequality by pulling in the top and bottom ends does have a whole range of benefits.
Extending on Greenspan's idea, you can reduce inequity by having the top 0.01% take all the money from the remaining 99.99%. All that demonstrates is that having low inequity as your sole target is stupid.
Thanks. That's the best read I've ever seen on the subject.
Sure, but they don't play 24/96 audio without downsampling.
(Note: I'm not saying someone could necessarily tell the difference, but there is a difference)
That certainly changes things. The summary for this article and the Ars article both suggested that the key was 10 chars long, and I couldn't find a specific number in TFA to replace it with.