This is another tedious Google slashvertisement. Ignore it, in the hope they will stop.
>>Lookif selfie can be a word, why can’t we let architecting in?
Because "selfie" fills a legitimate and objective need, filling a void created by an advancing technology and culture, neatly and succintly describing a "photograph of someone taken by that same someone, intended primarily for social media."
"Architecting" is superfluous, already synonymous with the shorter and more familiar "building" and "designing," and it contains the pompous subtext of equating the skills and efforts of an architect with those of code-monkeys and gannt-jockeys.
The reviewer does not indicate if the book is written in English, which is relevant because the title clearly is not.
Start at != fully loaded.
run a business without paying the traditional costs in the field and socialize your costs. in this case he wants every internet customer to pay for his bandwidth whether they use netflix or not.
ISPs chose their flat-rate business model; Netflix didn't force it on them. If that business model no longer works, ISPs should switch to a different one.
Nah, Netflix used to use other CDNs. But then they got big enough that it was cheaper to build their own.
That's orthogonal to the issue that (in most people's opinion) no CDN should have to pay broadband ISPs.
See, now thanks to you I have to clean all this coffee off my monitor...
Wrong answer, childless ideologue.
I and many more like me will tolerate plenty of email scraping if it results in the removal of pedophiles from free society. How much we will tolerate vs. how effective the perv purge is constitutes the thoughtful discussion. But being an ideologue. You don't want to think or discuss, you just want to pontificate and pretend your extreme point of view is the only sensible one because of its "purity."
It's a good question. I really want a take-anywhere tablet in the 7-8" range, with 2GB RAM, at least 32GB onboard storage, micro SD support, LTE, a 1920x1200 or better display, and a stylus.
This actually has all that, but it sacrifices weight and battery life to provide terrific graphics performance - which I don't really care about at all. (I play games on Android, but mostly Kairosoft games and Final Fantasy, which are not particularly taxing.)
But it's by no means a bad device, and if Nvidia can refine it through another couple of iterations, and get it to a point where the extra graphics performance doesn't cost much in terms of weight/battery life/dollars, then they might really have something.
You are not really looking at the entire picture.
It starts with some people trying to convince Ukraine to distance itself from Russia and become more European friendly. When the elected president decides to stick with Russia, all the sudden he is a crook and needs removed from office.
Except for the minor fact that he was a crook the entire time. If you want to talk about the entire picture.
What about my right to search?
There is no such right, except in your imagination.
Freedom of association.
And quite frankly speaking, for the cases this law is intended for (let's not focus only on the abuses, as most idiot journalists do because it makes for better headlines), the right of an individual to not have their life ruined by, say, completely made-up allegations of child abuse and rape quite clearly trumps your right of finding false and misleading information.
That would be libel, and is adequately covered by existing laws. Excessively covered in the UK.
It doesn't matter if the information is a matter of public record.
Yeah, it kind of does. Striking something from the public record is state-sponsored censorship, and that not only leads to evil, it's an evil in and of itself.
Our problem is that we have given a generation of attention-deficient gadgeteers who think that a reader-edited encyclopedia was a good idea public forums to spew their gerontophobic bias.
There is no crime in war. War has no law.
Tell that to Peter von Hagenbach, was was convicted and executed for war crimes in 1474 . He even offered the "only following orders" excuse.
Regardless, if you want to morally judge the actions of both sides here, Israel comes out looking far, far worse.
I'm not morally judging actions, I'm legally judging actions. Hamas is deliberately and systematically committing war crimes as defined by international law.
More than 500 Palestinians dead and climbing and you say Israel is trying to minimise casualties? Do you seriously expect people to believe that?
Absolutely, yes. If Israel were actually out to cause casualties, rather than to prevent them, the death toll would be enormous. If they were merely careless of civilian casualties, the death toll would not only be higher, it would be statistically correlated with the demographics of the Palestinian people, with deaths of women, children, and the elderly roughly in proportion to the size of those groups in the general population.
Instead, the Palestinian death statistics are massively skewed towards males aged 18-38. That can't happen if you're killing civilians either deliberately or carelessly. But it's exactly what you'd see if you were carefully targeting enemy combatants.