... so what you're saying is that in China, baby chickens eat cats? Aren't you thinking "In Soviet Russia..."
Might keep 17 U.S. Code Â 117 in mind.
Copying for purposes of backing up your software is legal. Period.
> Several years ago, the process of almost any online application realized a 90%+ non-response rate
Back when I was trying to land my first job, I replied to help wanted ads in the newspaper. (Yes, it's been a while.) What I remember of that was that the response rate was not much better in those days.
That's not to say that it's any less frustrating today than it was then, but the cost of the search (in actual out-of-pocket expenses) has decreased a good bit.
You know that you don't have to just add useless and uninteresting words to something that already had substance, right? At least borrow some quotes from Socrates' Dialogues to spice things up: There is admirable truth in that. That is not to be denied. That appears to be true. All this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. I think that what you say is entirely true. That, replied Cebes, is quite my notion. To that we are quite agreed. By all means. I entirely agree and go along with you in that. I quite understand you. I shall still say that you are the Daedalus who sets arguments in motion; not I, certainly, but you make them move or go round, for they would never have stirred, as far as I am concerned. If you're going to say _nothing_, at least be interesting about it, post anonymously, or risk looking more clueless / foolish. This is why the moderation system is in place, and mods typically don't listen to inanities like "Well said" when deciding on what to spend their points.
1. I'm too busy to sit around thinking up additional words to throw in so I can score "mod" points
2. The people I like on Slashdot are too busy to read a bunch of additional words I only threw in so I can score "mod" points
3. It's not in my nature to waste words, or to waste time
If other posts here on Slashdot are any indication, "Mr. Councilman" is just as likely to lose political points by supporting the poor.
Actually this particular councilman represents an extremely high-rent district--Manhattan's upper east side. I doubt there are many wealthier neighborhoods in the world. He's not doing this to 'score points', he's doing it to do the right thing.
It is my opinion that poverty is partially systemic. Our economic system depends on there being a pool of available workers (unemployed and underemployed). So as long as there is capitalism and a functioning free market, there will always be poor people. That being the case, we have a responsibility to make sure the basic needs of everyone are met. Increasingly in order to succeed in school and in life, Internet access isn't really a luxury.
Time and again, history has shown a healthy middle class is the best road to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
Let me fix that for you:
Time and again history has shown the way to have a healthy middle class is to alleviate poverty on a grand scale.
shutup. just shut the fuck up. you neither know you are talking about, nor have any valid point to make. its not about solving the digital divide any more than the housing thing is about solving poverty. its been widely and clearly shown that there is an increase in opportunity and outcomes between homes with and home without internet access. you're essentially complaining about improving someones potential opportunities to enrich themselves and make their life better and maybe even get out of that housing you mock. but again, you have no valid point, so therefore theres little sense in talking sense, like pointing out to you that without subsidized housing many of these people would be on street, homeless, increasing both crime rates and homeless and deaths among the impoverished. Theoretically we are a civilized nation. But a civilized nation doesnt advocate intentionally making it harder if not impossible for those most disadvantaged to improve themselves, nor advocate for them to die quickly and get out of the way.
Well spoken, bro
If you don't recognize that in this society those without computer access are at a disadvantage, you are as stupid as you are uncaring.
State DMVs have for some time been compiling digital photo databases. I know Oregon has because they had to bring "someone more familiar with the software" in when they took my license photo. I have a sizable beard and mustache, and I believe the software had difficulty finding my mouth.
If cars are going to have some "if you aren't facing the road, we're going to shut the car off" routine, I may be somewhat restricted in my choice of automobile, or at least options packages...
The difference between theory and practice is
- in theory, there is no difference
- in practice, there is.
A simulation of self-assembling robots is theory.
An actual pile of 1,024 self-assembling robots is practice.
Less tritely, you have zero information about flaws in your simulation until you try to apply it to/in the real world. Your simulation is excellent at helping you identify logical flaws in your design. But if you fail to account for something (crosswinds, say), then your simulation simply won't help you find it.
It's that whole "unknown unknowns" thing, man.
Running with your bad car analogy, they also package that engine for the subcompact and electric SUV models. It's just that you can't reach the steering wheel on the one, and it's entirely counter to why you would buy the vehicle for the other.
Some chassis/body limitations may apply...