So did I. I was thinking "No shit Sherlock" until I went back and re-read the title.
So did I. I was thinking "No shit Sherlock" until I went back and re-read the title.
So if the server at the back-end performing password authentication is compromised, you ask everyone to change their password.
What do you do when the server at the back-end is performing biometric authentication?
Biometrics is the dumbest authentication scheme on the face of the planet and anyone who relies on it is a moron.
It also happened quite famously to Google. The divisions of the company did not realize they were working on Android and Chrome OS at the same time, and have even come out to say as such publicly later.
You miss the entire point. You insist there are real life consequences, as if by watching this movie, it advances Card's anti-gay agenda. The reality is that the movie is far likely to do the opposite given that the story itself advocates tolerance. You continue to insist on something that makes no sense logically, and historically has proven false repeatedly.
If there was a clear correlation, such as all proceeds of the movie going directly to Card (who was likely already paid his set amount), and in turn those proceeds going directly to fund discrimination, then perhaps you'd have a point. Card already has wealth, and that wealth has not caused direct harm to the LGBT community, even though Card has certainly written ignorant essays calling for the criminalization of homosexuality. And despite those essays, homosexuality has not been criminalized. In fact, Utah is rumored to be on the precipice of overturning their gay marriage ban (despite Card's comments, and despite it being a strongly Mormon state).
The decision to attend the movie or not doesn't advance any political cause. Speaking to your elected officials, voting, volunteering, donating money, etc. These things advance political causes.
I'd dare say your false pretense of political activism is what is wrong with the country. You think you're making a difference by skipping a movie, and in doing so clearing yourself of obligation for actual action.
My original statement is that it is ironic that Card is a homophobe despite writing this fantastic story of tolerance, to which you foolishly tried to counter that his story doesn't promote tolerance. However, it does. It influenced me in a very positive way in promoting tolerance as a youth, because I experienced the story without the context of his personal political views. I'd wager most movie-goers will do the same.
For every single Hollywood movie you can see this summer, I'm sure you can find at least one person attached to the movie who has done or said something abhorrent. And unless you are consistent in your pointless boycott, then yes, you are fully a hypocrite.
Except that is what I said. Backwards compatibility is done with emulation, but the OS itself was written as something completely new, not something that had to be built around old apps.
Because key Windows apps will move forward and have new versions that support the new OS.
If you're running an old app that won't be updated for the new kernel, then it can't take advantage of new Windows features either way, and is already a second-class citizen. For example, Windows 7 added support for Jump Lists on the task bar. Vendors have to put out new versions of their app to support this feature.
When Apple made the leap to OS X, Adobe rewrote their app to work on OS X. When Apple switched to X86 processors, Adobe rewrote their app to work on OS X.
Being obsessed with backwards compatibility, you give no incentive to developers to write better apps.
Whatever you do, don't read Jack London or H. P. Lovecraft, who both wrote racist, propoganda books that fed the fear of "Yellow Peril". Supporting these racist authors will have real world implications.
Watching Lethal Weapon advances antisemitism.
Driving a Volkswagen on the autobahn is a clear indication you support Nazi ideals.
And watching a movie whose whole message is one of tolerance clearly will support the exact opposite ideal.
The problem with your comment is that it is entirely incorrect.
Orson Scott Card initially had a short story, but it really took life when he came up with the concept for the sequel. An editor suggested taking that concept for Speaker of the Dead and inserting Ender, a character from an unrelated short story at that point.
The novel of Ender's Game was written literally as a means to lead into Speaker for the Dead, a story he had already decided he wanted to tell. The books were actually bundled together and distributed as Ender's War.
Even more, the "hand-waving" you want to invent is actually something present in the first book. Go re-read the last chapter of Ender's Game in which Ender takes possession of the Hive Queen and vows to right his wrong. From the very beginning, the story was about tolerance, not advocating genocide and war.
I perceive it a bit different in that they became influential bloggers.
Mike and Jerry made dicks jokes on Penny Arcade, and in turn made Time's Most 100 Influential people list and now run the Penny Arcade empire with a gaming expo more relevant than E3.
And Peter Wiggin didn't become a world leader by receiving Reddit upvotes as it were. He had puppet writers creating propaganda and support for his real persona. He was brother to the most famous man in the world, who was now removed from the equation. Celebrity can be parlayed into political power.
The point of Locke and Demontheses was two-fold:
1. The Human/Bugger war stemmed from our innate desire for conflict and war. The moment the threat was removed, we looked for new enemies (human again)
2. Public support for these conflicts could be generated by fear mongering and propaganda.
This joke is entirely apt and inaccurate at the same time.
Microsoft keeps losing market share in every key market and their rate of growth keeps slowing.
But yet they are growing still none the less with record profits.
There are some who feel Balmer needs to go to save Microsoft, yet how do you kick out a CEO delivering record profits?
I think moving in almost the opposite direction is the way to go.
Clinging to all the backwards compatibility holds them back. Apple made huge leaps forward when they made a new OS with almost no regard for backwards compatibility, thinking only of how to move forward with the best possible OS.
Legacy apps can be run through some sort of emulation or virtualization system included in the OS.
I once noted at an Exchange demonstration (put on by a professional Microsoft Evangelist) that not all of the new features in Exchange were supported in the new version of Outlook, which seemed odd. He confessed that the two teams are not allowed to talk to each other during initial development because of NDAs. The two divisions of the company are kept in the dark from each other, even though the two products are designed to work together.
I think many large companies suffer from their size.
You are absolutely correct. This is about two other things.
1. Forced endorsement of their relationships. They want to legally require that everyone pretend that their domestic partner is their spouse. There is no such thing as same sex marriage. It's like legally mandating Santa Clause.
2. Crush dissent. We're starting to see this already. Bakers who have religious objections to baking cakes with two grooms are being sued for discrimination in public accommodations. That's why they want to co-opt marriage. Disagree with redefined marriage? Tough shit, if you do or say anything against it, they'll sue you into oblivion.
Distribution of information is also conduct. Conduct isn't protected by the first amendment.
The reason those newspapers weren't prosecuted is because they have the ability to return favors to the politicians who didn't prosecute them. Don't think for one minute that if they couldn't be pressured for some quid pro quo, they would have been treated the same way.
I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.
The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.
This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.
Kiss your keyboard goodbye!