...you guys stop designing the worlds worst interfaces for things. DO NOT HIRE ENGINEERS TO DESIGN THE UIs. It's important. Really.
...it would have been ok if Barbie had 2 women to write the code for her?
This same thing gets reported every single year. We all know nuclear weapons will never get used, but we can't get rid of them because it would then make us seem weak. Like it or not, this is the only thing standing between us and another large scale war.
Yeah, good luck with that one, RCMP! it's like law enforcement lives inside of it's own little reality distortion bubble.
1) He's not a victim. He's a convicted criminal.
2) It's not abuse, any more than making your kid eat his broccoli is abuse. Not liking specific food you could eat just fine something isn't grounds for special treatment.
3) If you intentionally starve yourself the only person you're hurting is you.
Cry me a fucking river. You're in prison, not the Hilton. Unless there's a medical reason to treat you differently you shouldn't be treated differently. He lost weight because he wasn't eating, not because the meals didn't contain sufficient nutrients to sustain him. It's his own damn fault.
It's imperative that when I develop, that I'm developing and testing using the same browser an end user will have. Introducing differences where you have a developer and a non-developer browser is a bad idea.
I find it increasingly more and more difficult to take Zuckerberg seriously.
...is not to play. You don't need facebook as much as you think you do, and the 500 people in your friends list are not really your friends.
This is not the same as preventing the vulnerability. It's just taking away the control center. it does not prevent someone from doing it again in the future so stop thinking you're safe because you run a Mac.
Why exactly does the EFF need to "campaign" for this? Does it not contain programmers good enough to just do it?
You've managed to miss the point yet again, wired.
First off, test pilots take risks - they know the risks. They know them intimately. Death is always a real possibility with an experimental aircraft. Accidents happen, but I'm sure nobody there was saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if it crashed and everyone DIED?". This op-ed piece is written by a complete douche. Obviously commercial passenger space flight is going to start ridiculously expensive and be out of the reach of joe sixpack - but that's how everything starts. At one point, only the super rich could afford cars, now everyone's got one. We probably won't see affordable trips to space in our lifetime, but maybe my kid will. Or their kid after that. What I do know is that if nobody starts trying to do it, it will never happen.
Since you can't just buy a ticket to go to space at any price, it IS attempting to pushing boundaries - even if they're not the boundaries he'd like to be pushed.
>The theory of evolution, as a scientific theory, mandates that living organisms develop through a process of natural selection
No it doesn't. It only says that natural selection is one possible mechanism by which an evolutionary path is decided. We engage in artificial selection all the time and there's nothing natural about it.
No, that's not what it's defined as at all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.""
"Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they "require it.""
No, they don't require an intelligence at all. They require appropriate conditions are met. Those conditions do not necessarily imply an intelligence.
It's like one form of stupid is solved just to make way for another.