Even aside from their recent history of embarrassing scandal, you don't really think of them as one of the techie outfits.
but the truck driver said he was watching Harry Potter:
How exactly was the truck driver able to see exactly what movie the guy was watching from that angle and distance?
I've never felt like I needed "assistance" to keep the car in my lane.
Then you're probably not realizing just how bad your driving is.
After observing other people's driving for about a quarter-century now, I can safely say that most humans just aren't very good about keeping their car in their lane at all times. They can use all the help they can get. If you've *ever* gone over the lines while you were driving, then this includes you too. Somehow I doubt you have a perfect record of this.
Trying to embrace and extinguish your competition (like what they're trying to do with linux as we speak) is only going to encourage the creation of yet other new alternatives to your authoritarian garbage OS.
This sounds like something out of a movie, not real life. In real life, we've had Linux for over 20 years now, yet almost no one uses it unfortunately. In fact, desktop Linux usage seems to have dropped significantly in the last 5 years or so, with a lot of people going to Apple.
Seems to me that MS is doing the right thing: figuring out new ways of milking more revenue out of Windows users, who aren't decreasing in number at all.
All ventures must end, and Microsoft is no exception. They are only hastening their own demise.
How so? From what I've read, MS's financials are very, very good. Seems like they're doing the right thing for their profitability. Maybe you don't like it, maybe it's Orwellian, but too bad. *No one* is being forced to use MS and their spyware-laden OS; everyone who uses it does so voluntarily. If people don't like their OS being intrusive and authoritarian, then they should stop using it, but I just don't see that happening, ever. People are too short-sighted and stupid. MS might as well take advantage of that.
Wow, you're really a loon if you think that's a winning strategy: have Hillary pick a Republican running mate? That might pick up some R voters who don't like Trump, but it'll also cause tons of D voters (including everyone who considers themselves a progressive) to sit out the race or vote third-party. This strategy actually would have been great for getting the Green Party a lot more votes than they got with her crappy pick of Kaine.
Sanders *was* a qualified Democrat. He ran as one, and that's all you have to do. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Democrat Party faithful think that only long-time Party members should be allowed to play in their party. No wonder they have such a hard time getting progressives to turn out to vote for them, by pushing partisan politics over ideals and doing the right thing. Honestly, if there's any good to come out of this crazy election, it'll be the utter destruction of the Democratic Party. At least the Republicans are somewhat honest about their intentions and who they work for.
And Trump absolutely *is* unpopular. Countless polls have proven this. Just because people voted for him doesn't mean they actually liked him, same as Hillary.
Nobody has debunked the gender pay gap
Wrong. It's a myth.
They're under the impression that Oracle has been discriminating against pretty much everybody in one area or the other.
Bullshit. They're under the impression that Oracle was likely to roll over and take it in the ass just to avoid the bad publicity.
Maybe it was a legitimate complaint?
Or maybe he was a shitty employee who decided to play the race card when it caught up with him.
Many younger individuals can't seem to get the concept that paying over and over for "borrowing" something is a bad deal.
We're talking about movies here, not music. I don't know about you, but there aren't very many movies I really care to watch over and over again. This is the whole reason that video rental stores (like the ill-fated Blockbuster) were such a success as soon as VCRs became commonplace; most of us just want to pay a fee and watch a movie *once*, and that's it. Once in a while we'll see a movie that's so great we might want to watch it multiple times (like Aliens from 1986), but that's rare, and even there it's not like I want to watch it that often.
Music is entirely different, and I agree with you on that: I really don't understand the current phenomenon where so many people want to pay for streaming music access, and my best guess is that it's mostly people who don't care that much about music and just want some crappy filler playing in the background all the time. Personally I have very specific music I want to listen to, so I keep it in Ogg form on all my devices (phone, laptop, car) and play from my library constantly. But I listen to music a fair amount: pretty much any time I'm in the car, for instance, plus frequently when I'm using my computer at home, plus frequently when I'm at work (with headphones). I don't watch movies that often, and it just isn't very often that I re-watch a movie.
Oh, and what if you wish to watch something that's older than last year? (Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Pacific Rim) or even within the last year (Star Wars 7) These are all available to me, to watch any time.
Right, and how much did all those cost you? How many dozens of movies do you have to make a decent collection so you aren't watching the same 3 movies over and over? The total cost there is significant. With Netflix, you pay a cheap monthly fee (less than $10) and can watch all you want at any time, out of a truly enormous catalog. If you really like a particular movie a lot and want the higher quality (and lack of worries about problems with access) that a physical disc offers, you can certainly buy that too; it's not either-or.
Exactly. Download it on BT, and now you have a reasonable-size file that you can just play in any decent media player at your convenience. No messing around with stupid easily-scratched optical discs, no messing around with your Blu-Ray player needing a firmware update because of some encryption keys on the disc, no messing around with slow internet connections and streaming problems (esp. with FF/REW), it "just works". The main problem with the BT stuff is that a lot of it is transcoded to smaller resolutions or bitrates to save space, so it won't have the ultimate quality of a true Blu-Ray. But it's still a lot better than DVD quality usually, thanks to much more modern codecs. The h265 stuff is great.
No, that's not an open question at all. Sanders would have won, easily.
Hillary wasn't that far behind Trump, she won the popular vote, but she screwed up (among other ways) by not campaigning in key states like PA that the DNC thought were "safe". Bernie was always much better about campaigning in places like that. Hillary's campaign was totally full of hubris; they really thought they couldn't possibly lose, especially to Trump. Her campaign was also full of condescension, esp. to the Bernie voters, and of course to anyone on the right. A lot of Trump voters were just sick of mainstream, incumbent politicians and voted for him out of spite for that and her. Many would have actually voted for Bernie. Bernie brought a lot of enthusiasm from the under-30 crowd. Obama himself won largely because he got young people to get out and vote. Hillary didn't: young people didn't like her, and her campaign didn't care much to court them either. It didn't help that she and her followers specifically told the Bernie crowd that "we don't need you". It also didn't help that she and the DNC were seen by the Bernie voters as having knifed his campaign in the back with dirty tricks, as shown in the leaked Podesta emails.
Hillary lost an election to the 2nd-most unpopular candidate in history. That's because she was the most unpopular candidate ever. There's really no way Bernie could have done worse. People actually *liked* Bernie, he had the support of the youth, and he wasn't hamstruck by scandal after scandal. The only arguments against Bernie were from Hillary supporters inventing nonsense to try to back their queen (like, "the Republicans would have found dirt on him too!" Except that they didn't.).
Just look at the election numbers. There were millions more votes in the 2008 election than in November's, even though the population is a little bigger now. Lots of people simply sat at home. Obama was famous and acknowledged for getting a lot of people out to vote, particularly younger people who are infamous for not turning out to vote; Bernie had the same effect, but Hillary had the opposite effect. Assume that Bernie would get those several million people out to vote unlike Hillary, add in all of Hillary's voters (because they sure as hell aren't going to vote for Trump, and they're generally older so they're more reliable about both turning out and voting along party lines even if they aren't enthused about the candidate), plus definitely more swing voters since he didn't have Hillary's baggage, and it's quite clear that Bernie would have won.
It's just too bad the DNC and their lapdogs in the media will never admit to itself that this is the case, and Trump being president is really all their fault for doing everything they could to keep Bernie from winning their nomination. (Remember the day when Washington Post published almost 20 hit pieces on Bernie in a single day?)
I'm an ex-H1B, and I concur. Heck, I'm sure if this were in place when they hired me, I'd actually get a better offer, too (since it would raise the baseline).
Look, if you need talent that bad, why aren't you willing to pay accordingly for it? Supply and demand and all that. $100k isn't even all that much for the industry.
For the ICMP thing, I can't imagine how going along with that order from a high-up manager would be "criminally negligent". In fact (I am not a networking engineer BTW), according to my quick research on stackoverflow, networks absolutely *can* work with ICMP blocked, just not well, and it makes it hard to debug some things. A lot of corporate networks seem to be partly broken anyway, and corporate computers running McAfee software are broken but sorta-working too, so running a network this way wouldn't be the end of the world.
Now I should hope that it didn't seem that I was advocating being actually *criminally negligent* in going along with managers' orders. That's an entirely different level. Going along with the company shooting itself in the foot (after documenting it well so you can CYA when the SHTF, and after raising an initial objection but caving after management insists) is entirely different from going along with orders to do something outright criminal. I only advocate not going to heroic lengths to help the company avoid shooting itself in the foot when its own high-up management is insisting on it, because most likely it's just going to result in your termination. If they're ordering you to do criminal things, you need to go to the police or other government authorities, and simultaneously start looking for a new job.
I am NOMAD!