What's the difference between an 18:9 display and a 2:1 display?
Entity references are your friend. Try < next time.
So if a few friends and I between us manage to set up a bakery cartel, you'll happily start paying us $30 a loaf because for you to expect anything less would be the same as if you expected a free ride? How about $40 a loaf, or even $50? You'll pay it?
Thanks! That's very encouraging, and I'll be sure to take that into consideration in my business plan.
Thank you for the fine example of something known as "false equivalence".
So if I get this right, India is making a huge income off of outsourcing, H1B, etc, working for American companies developing software and then having that income funneled back into their country,
It's not India the country or the Indian government getting rich. It's some Indian businessmen getting rich off gouging the workers they send overseas.
but they won't buy that software even at reduced educational rates? Good to see they're doing their part.
That's the government of an Indian state. Whose schools in all likelihood are not getting financed by the aforementioned businessmen.
What you're suggesting is akin to suggesting that the public schools in North Dakota naturally have more money than they know what to do with because Microsoft is an American company that makes lots of money, which is not really the case, is it?
I'll bet you're one of those annoying people who insist on using "gift" as a verb, too.
That's good, and thanks for the info. But you could have actually said so in the first place.
I remain skeptical and suspect that MS will soon take steps to prevent this sort of thing, but we'll see what happens.
I do wonder if modern communications has changed the balance of things too...
Modern communications do not change human nature. We can communicate faster and with more people but what drives a man to violence does not change from 100 years ago nor what drives a politician to be corrupt/tyrannical. The structure of US government is predicated on the fact that power corrupts and governments tend toward tyranny.
Tyranny does not have to come from the government. A recent is example is the UC Berkly riots where the rioters were beating people up while the police stood idly by. Another thing to consider is when the government does not enforce law and order. An example being the black panthers in CA storming the legislature armed to protest gun control measures and to protest the governments inaction in their communities that was plagued by violence. Guns make any protest to be taken serious and forces the government to acknowledge or respond.
If a corrupt government ordered the police to use lethal force against unarmed protesters our police would refuse. Likewise our military would refuse to get involved. Both the police and military here know it would be both illegal and immoral and in the face of overwhelming public protest would respect the power of the people.
This is generally how it is in the US but just as you alluded to the gradual erosion of freedoms by the governments so to do people gradually justify tyranny. A recent is example is "punch a nazi". It went so far as to "punch someone that defends a nazi". Nazi turned into "someone I disagree with or who has opinions I don't like". How long does it take for the entire political right to be characterized as nazi justifying violence to an entire segment of society? From the rhetoric we have heard, it doesn't take much. Even the social justice "all white men are racist, all hetero are homophobic, etc" rhetoric had the same dehumanizing justification for violence. The right of arms means that even if that rhetoric gets out of hand, those "protesters" have to understand fully that if they advocate violence ("this is a war" Berkly riots), that they will have to be willing to put their lives on the line instead of hiding behind group think, propaganda (narrative crafting from news/government), and a complicit government allowing such riots to occur by not breaking them up when they turned violent.
If you are the receiving end of those protests or rhetoric and the government is complicit with those aggression, the right of arms gives citizens the ability to defend themselves from mob justice and police inaction. Every group has to think twice about making another group the scapegoat of their violence because everyone can defend themselves regardless what the government does.
I sympathize with your sentiment and feel for the loss of your coworker. I only wanted to respond to one part of your comment.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
All rights do have a cost in blood. Habeas corpus, speech, assembly, and bear arms. All of those rights had a cost beyond treasure. The US fought 2 wars to get those rights for everyone and they were the bloodiest wars in American history. People say "be eternally vigilant" to protect the rights we have but that doesn't tell what you have to be vigilant about; people have to be vigilant about the cost of rights. The more that people forget what it costs to get and keep those rights the more that that price will be paid.
It was a genuine good thing that the Battle of Athens saved the ballots from a tyrannical government that decided to shoot a black man in the back while voting to count the ballots in secret. It is a genuine good thing that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry is one of the checks on the government to protect the citizens from tyranny because people are corruptible. The whole point is that you cannot trust people in any position of power.
The right of arms is a right of self defense. Guns are a tool to that enables the citizenry to protect themselves from rogue agitators to state aggression. It is a tool that equalizes the odds of any violent encounter regardless of the physical and fighting prowess you or the agitator may have.
Getting rid of a right to citizens does nothing to address the real issue of people doing bad things. Getting rid of speech will not end racist bigotry anymore than ridding guns will end violence.
They migrated here too. There are no humans native to North/South America.
Go back across the Bering Strait.
And take Sarah Palin with you.
I am disappointed to read posts that somehow infer that Srinivas' employment in the Olathe office was at the expense of a US resident getting a job. That is simply not true. There is a world wide shortage of skilled workers. We have two US employees in our Auckland office and no one here complains about them taking our jobs. We employee every skilled Kiwi we can find but the shortage means over half my team are from China and Taiwan. We welcome them as we need more skilled people to get keep our business competitive. None of the locals, such as myself, see these people as stealing our jobs.
It is the same in Olathe, they will employ any US citizen with suitable skills ahead of a foreign worker as it is less hassle but they can not get enough staff with right skills, in part because Garmin set the bar quite high when it comes to skill levels. I have meet people with a wide range of backgrounds in the US Garmin offices and have never seen even a hint of racism or sexism.
The US like Australia is a country of immigrants, and I support immigrants for reasons that are separate from my economic advantage. But I do think that immigrants take away jobs from Americans, particularly in technology.
Employment is cyclical. Up to about the 1980s, especially in technology, when there was an abundance of employees, employers used to hire the most qualified (often overqualified) worker. So a food company would hire a PhD to work in their chemistry labs. When there was a shortage of workers, they would hire lower-qualified workers. So the company would hire a technician with a college degree in chemistry, or even a smart high school graduate, and train him on the job. And they usually worked out pretty well. This was particularly striking during the World War II, when the US had the best job market we've seen in living memory.
Long after WWII, American corporations had training programs where they hired less skilled workers and trained them on the job. When corporations bought the first mainframe computers, they would often hire smart college graduates with degrees in mathematics or related field, or sometimes in unrelated fields, and train them on the job. For example, when New York City bought its first computers, they hired philosophy majors from City College, and trained them in programming, according to programmers I've talked to. Sometimes they just hired liberal arts graduates who seemed to have an affinity for math and logic. American corporations believed that training was the way to be profitable in the long run. (They also gladly paid taxes for public education to train their workers.)
By the 1990s, this had fallen out of favor. They abandoned the idea of training people on the job. They demanded specialized skills and workers who could "start immediately." We've seen complaints on Slashdot of how companies were looking not for a programmer, but for a programmer with 5 years of experience in software XYZ.
In my observation, there seemed to be two reasons for this. First, a lot of people were trained in the military, particularly the U.S. Air Force and Navy. Second, there were a lot of trained immigrants coming into the country, particularly Soviet immigrants who got an excellent education, often with advanced degrees (for example, Sergei Brin's parents).
If you believe that we have a free market, then you have to believe that employees will have more opportunities when unemployment is low and they are in greater demand (and vice versa). When employees are hard to get, employers will train less skilled workers. When they're easy to get, employers will demand PhDs.
It seems, from intuition and observation, that flooding the employment market with skilled workers will discourage employers from hiring and training less skilled workers. It seems that if American employers couldn't have gotten skilled workers from the Soviet Union, China, India, and elsewhere, they would have been forced to hire Americans and train them. And while immigrant workers are usually very skilled, they're doing work that American workers could also be trained to do if the job market forced employers to do so.
The original argument for free trade was that (1) free trade will create winners and losers. But (2) free trade is so efficient that we can compensate the losers and still come out ahead. I agree. If we had a Scandinavian-style safety net, with free or income-based education, housing, and health care, where unemployment is a paid vacation, I would welcome immigrants. Take my job. I'll go back to school. But the right wing took over, and as implemented, immigrants compete with me.
I'm not an economist, so I can't talk about this authoritatively, but that's the way it seems to have worked out. America was a different country 50 years ago. There was much more opportunity for anybody who wanted to work, particularly in technology (rather than McDonald's), and more job security. Now it's gone. The skilled blue-collar union workers, and their children, were the ones who took the biggest hit. Those were the complaints that Trump appealed to, unfortunately. And his solutions are xenophobic and fascistic.
Also, Europeans and Indian's language comes from common branch of human languages, "proto indo-european"
What's that got to do with anything?
It's important because the linguistic analysis that identified migrations and population groups disproves certain 19th century racial theories.
The Germans, for example, defined themselves as a "pure race," and claimed there was some benefit to maintaining that pure race against mixing with, for example, Jews or Negroes.
The study of migrations showed a history of constant mixing over thousands of years. This was confirmed by DNA analysis.
So the 3,500 year old Egdved girl http://en.natmus.dk/historical... who was celebrated as Denmark's national ancestor, turned out to have come from the Black Forest in Germany. And she traveled back and forth.
People often think of Grimm's fairy tales as German. But actually the same stories are translated from one European language to the next, in French, for example, or English. And there are older languages from medieval times that fill in the gaps between major European languages.
Put it all together and you get a picture of people traveling throughout Europe, and mating with each other, over thousands of years, after they left Africa. The aristocrats traveled quickly and the peasants traveled slowly (over generations). The Neanderthals mated with modern humans. This genetic mixture was probably good in terms of health, since inbreeding populations are more likely to have genetic diseases.
I haven 't studied the history of India, but my understanding is that the British colonials found a less hierarchic society and turned it into a more hierarchic society, on the model of certain British and European aristocratic ideas, which saw a great chain of being with protozoa on the bottom, animals in the middle, and British aristocrats (like themselves) near the top, right under the angels and God.
IIUC, in this particular context, it's not really a security issue.
Users can still log-in using normal Microsoft credentials (as far as I know)...
And on exactly what basis do you make this assumption?
When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.