How does not having a use for themes equate to wanting Chrome? Underneath they are still very different browsers.
Most users couldn't care less about whether their browser is written in C or C++ or with Gecko or Blink.
So just because a browser doesn't match your personal preferences, it's shit?
Because not everyone wants lightweight browser. Those who do can use Chrome. It's already cornered the lightweight browser market, and a non-profit like Mozilla is not going to be able to oust one of the most profitable tech companies in the world from a market that it has dominated for years.
Mozilla doesn't seem to have any real sense of strategy beyond "let's do what Chrome does", but they don't understand that people who like Chrome aren't going to switch from Chrome to the competition if the competition is exactly the same. The competitor has to offer something that the original doesn't..
The only way Firefox is going to survive is if it targets a niche that Chrome ignores, which, up until now, was power-users and others who like a high degree of configurability. That configurability was exactly what made me stick with Firefox for such a long time, but with the add-on ecosystem slowly being reduced to nothing, I didn't see why I should stick with Firefox when Chrome already integrated so well with the default browser on my mobile phone.
Clearly I'm not the only one who feels this way because the number of Firefox users has been shrinking steadily.
First, a thirty second Google search could tell you what the necessary and proper clause is. I'm not going to do that work for you.
Second, if you have never heard of the necessary and proper clause -- the same clause which, back in 1791 was literally the first item of the Constitution whose proper interpretation was debated on the floors of Congress; the same clause which in 1819 was the subject of the Supreme Court case that first established the precedent of judicial review; the same clause which in 1828 was one of the principle motivators for the founding of the Democratic Party -- then you don't know the first thing about the US government or the Constitution, so I couldn't give less of a shit what your explanation is.
And the necessary and proper clause is the clause most ignored by libertarians.
Okay then, let's look just at welfare data:
States with the highest percentage of food stamps recipients:
1. Mississippi (22%)
2. New Mexico (21%)
3. West Virginia (20%)
Yup, nothing to do with welfare.
The main point of high school in many places nowadays isn't to teach: it's too keep teenagers off the streets. If you try to make high school degrees "worth something" by kicking misbehaving students out of school, you are putting precisely those who are most likely to commit crimes back onto the streets. Expect a nationwide uptick in crime to follow.
It's entrenchment and market muscle.
No, it isn't. The reason Linux hasn't caught on in the desktop market is that is simply not accessible to non-developers. That has always been the reason, and it utterly astounds me that after twenty years so many Linux fanboys still don't get it.
I tried setting up Linux for my Uncle once. He is fairly computer savvy, but not a programmer. Things worked well at first. He could use Firefoxfor the web, and he was already familiar with the UI. OpenOffice took a bit of getting used to, but it served his needs well enough.
Then after a few weeks, my uncle wanted to install some sort of financial software. (I don't remember the exact name.) There was no binary distribution available, so I told him about the terminal and configure/make/sudo make install. Simple enough right? No. He got an error during the build process. Spent hours trying to figure it out himself before calling me. Turned out he needed to install the libxml-dev package. Simple enough for you and me, but how the hell is someone who's never heard of C supposed to figure that out? Install libxml-dev, and then we run into another problem. He ran "make install" without "sudo" and now nothing worked. I spent about an hour trying to explain chmod and octal numbers and the difference between
How would this same process have played out on Windows or OS X? Google program, download installer, run installer, done.
Linux is a great OS for you and I. A superior OS, even. But for the vast majority of computer users out there, it is not at all accessible. You simply can't use Linux effectively unless you know how to code.
In case it wasn't immediately obvious, that was sarcasm.
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin -- none of them knew how to code, right?
I think GPs point is that this would never have happened if the league supplying the balls rather than the individual teams. If the teams never got to touch the footballs before play time, they would never have a change to underinflate them between inspection and play time.
Agreed, but let's take a second look at Archangel's comment:
She got the job because she was Monica's Ex-Boyfriend's wife. Not because she actually did anything worthy of it.
The bolded sentence may be true, but the italicized is false. She got the job partly because of Bill's fame and partly because of her own qualifications. Reagan was way more popular than Clinton when he left office, but I don't think Nancy Reagan would have been able to successfully run for senate at the time.
She was also a U.S. Senator for New York for eight years (i.e. Elected twice). But of course, that was also a job that she only got for being Bill Clinton's wife and not because she holds a law degree from Yale University, not because she was a professor of Law at the University of Arkansas, not because she was she was on the congressional legal advisory staff in the Watergate impeachment process, and not because she played an important role in organizing the Carter presidential campaign. Facts.
Very true, but let me add that catastrophic failures are not the only time you need humans in the cockpit: Autopilot can have trouble handling even moderately bad weather (as in this video of pilots landing planes in a crosswind). Autopilot technology can't (yet) match human skill in situations like these.
I'm not saying that for-profit universities are bad because they seek a profit. But there is an undeniable trend: For-profit colleges are worse than non-profit colleges by almost every metric.
Motivations: Yes, some non-profit universities are spending enormous amounts of money on sports, but sports spending is an investment that returns profits that are used for education. For-profit schools, on the other hand, spend more than $400,000 a day on ads while downsizing their teaching staff.
Governance: Yes, another legitimate gripe with non-profit universities. But once again, for-profit universities do it worse. Read the consumerist link I posted earlier. Widepsread misrepresentation of graduation and placement rates. Falsification of grades to prevent students from failing out. Termination of faculty members that failed too many students.
Outcomes: Yep, there are lots of recent graduates of non-profit universities who are jobless. But how many of them went to universities that have campuses with 0% graduation rates? You have to wonder what they point of a university is when it fails to graduate any students. There's also the fact that many for-profit colleges are charging $20,000 - $30,000 for associate'sdegrees. You could get that for less than $2,000 at you local community college.
Private universities are a response to current realities: many low-risk jobs require a paper degree, but no actual skills. Many traditional universities are needlessly stupid and expensive if all you want is that paper. And there is plenty of free money to go around, irrespective of merit.
100% true. But I don't have anything against private universities. In fact, I went to a private university. That said, it was a non-profit, regionally accredited private university -- the complete opposite of the nationally accredited for-profit universities that were mentioned in the articles that I linked to. Private does not equal for-profit, and that is an important distinction to make. This image sums it up nicely.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
