Crash, because it doesn't run well on Windows 7.
Crash, because it doesn't run well on Windows 7.
Sounds more mooving than wonderful.
Rotten Tomatoes has two aggregate scores. It has an aggregate critic score, which was 27% for Dawn of Justice, and an aggregate audience score which was 63%. You can see an even bigger discrepancy with Iron Fist which has a 17% critic rating and a 83% audience rating. I'm sure if we went looking through it we can find numerous examples like this and in every case Rotten Tomatoes will promote the critic rating and rarely promotes the audience rating unless you dig into the title in question.
The freeloading "problem" only exists because unions negotiate for closed shops in right-to-work states but Unions don't want employees knowing about their Beck rights. We'll see if the requirement for businesses to post notifications of Beck rights for employees will be reinstated under Trump after Obama had removed it.
Trump's already selected Red Forman to lead the charge on putting boots on Uranus.
RHPS is a film that is over 40 years old. It should be common sense that midnight showings of anything is going to attract a different type of crowd than what you would be expecting during a normal movie going experience. It's also an anomaly in that it's one of those movies where pretty much every normal behavior that should be expected of movie goers is intentionally thrown aside, figuratively and literally.
Immigrants from seven countries were prohibited, as far as number of Muslims we have:
Iran (#6 at 74,819,00)
Sudan (#11 at 39,027,950)
Iraq (#13 at 31,108,000)
Yemen (#18 at 24,023,000)
Syria (#20 at 20,895,000)
Somalia (#29 at 9,231,000)
Libya (#37 at 6,325,000)
The world total is at 1.7 billion so the ban effects 11-12% of the world's muslim population. Amusingly, Trump could double the number of muslims affected by the ban by simply adding Indonesia to the list.
But if these ADA students needed to view these videos - e.g. someone else required these ADA students to view the videos for a paid online course - then they should be the ones responsible for paying to close-caption the required videos.
Under which of the following scenarios do you believe UC Berkley should provide CC for the videos?
A. The students making the complaint are students at UC Berkley (public university, part of the University of California system).
B. The students making the complaint are students at UC Davis (public university, part of the University of California system).
C. The students making the complaint are students at University of Virginia due to the videos being used in a course there (public university).
D. The students making the complaint are students at MIT due to the videos being used in a course there (private university).
E. The students making the complaint are not students at any university.
Yes, my favorite chapter was the Intestine of the Leviathan... because it didn't involve any character that was part of the story but instead went about describing the sewers of Paris based off the tales from various real figures.
Roll20 does have a tablet application so if you want a digital character sheet that's a really good option to use. I've been using it to store my character information for a face to face session and it works wonderfully since the r20 sheet calculates various things for me.
He boasting on his ability to deliver the on the promise. The contract will certainly include clauses that remove liability of providing the system for free in the case of other actors that can influence it that are outside of his control including a nature induced issue during shipping, piracy, the shipment held up by Australian customs, and union strikes that remove the ability to actual move material. That's just a limited list of the things that will probably show up.
So you all congregate at Tim Horton's because they're heated buildings with insulation!
It's a plus depending on who you're talking about.
Foreign Spy Agencies: Positive
Domestic Companies: Positive
Domestic Spy Agencies (Excluding CIA): Probably Negative
Consider the following scenarios where two spy agencies both use an exploit to spy on the other team.
1. Neither agency is aware the other agency has the tool.
2. Both agencies are aware the other agency has the tool.
3. One agency is aware the other agency has the tool but not the inverse.
3 is the ideal situation for your team because you can employ honeypots and misinformation so you want to be on the upper hand where you know the other side has the tool. There's no telling how many of these exploits fall into category three. It means that other intelligence agencies will be rummaging through this list of exploits to identify weaknesses and information that they didn't think the CIA knew as well as identifying any information collected with these exploits as they need to be put back under consideration on whether they are true or not.
Prior to these leaks no one knew that the CIA knew about these exploits. Now everyone knows the CIA knows about these exploits. This provides two clear problems for intelligence gathering for the CIA.
1. Other individuals and organizations will address these exploits making the exploits useless for government actors.
2. Other individuals and organizations will cease using these exploits for intelligence gathering as they're aware that the CIA knows about them. This does not mean that they don't have other exploits that can be used.
In order to effectively gather intelligence the enemy cannot know that you know what they know. This means the CIA can no longer use their knowledge of these exploits to create honeypots. Enemy actors will know and have just cause to suspect any information they gain via these exploits or avoid them to prevent any surveillance on their activities that could indicate what they're interested in.
The one innovation we tried to get buy in for that failed miserably was a significant means to reduce the amount of printing going on in the organization as well as reduce order entry errors by relying on OCR. We currently print off a document, on average, roughly 1.8 times due to having multiple physical locations all copies of which are destroyed and we have a number of digital copies of this document equivalent to approximately 3-4 times thanks to mailboxes and document management systems. The current process is a huge waste and the managers realize this and have attempted to get it addressed. It was doomed to failure despite the huge potential cost saves in printing as well as the cost savings in time with opening orders and cost savings from reduction of errors. it was doomed because the team responsible for entering the details of the orders, which the custom nature of our products make it difficult to automate that step, doesn't want to go paperless. Or rather, I should say that some members of that team have paper heavy checks and balance processes that they use that "require" the paper version of the document.
In this case it is certainly a problem of some people not being able to see the big picture it's just that the people failing to see the big picture are the entrenched individuals that don't want to change. The company I work for has been growing and a lot of people who aren't in management don't realize that their tools and processes are no longer adequate for the size of the business or for continued growth and hiring new employees. You could say that there are about three to four distinct methods of doing the same thing and the upper managers have been seemingly working towards trying to standardize but these people who resist change are the problem along with the people responsible for communicating why changes are occurring. The former only see their own little world so they see a change and how it negatively impacts them and dig in their heels and fight it tooth and nail. They don't provide helpful feedback because the people responsible for communicating to them fail at their job. Then once the update is finished, pushed to production and the old data entry interface is shut off they won't do anything but bitch about it.
I guess the point of this anecdote is that a failure to see the big picture is a problem for both the people pitching ideas as well as those who are impacted by ideas.
You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.