This is the only Trump policy that I actually agree with. So I'm on the horns of a dilemma.
Let me get you out of the horns of dilemma; this doesn't change anything. All this EO does is say that in 220 days, Trump is to get a report on his desk, informing him about the current situation and if there's anything he can do about it.
So what he's saying then is that there's nothing wrong with the law, it's just not being enforced?
It's not just that. This EO is saying that someone has 220 days to create a report, for Trump to review about how the law is not being enforced. That's all. The reason for all of this bluster is to make his trust-and-don't-verify support base think that he's actually doing something.
Only hours after the announcement, corporations all over America started hiring lawyers to find new loopholes in the law.
But this isn't a law. The Executive Branch doesn't make laws. All EO is doing is ordering some of Trumps reports to create a report by Thanksgiving to let him know what he can do about buying American made goods without Congresses approval. No corporations need to do a thing about this.
I popped in Forbidden Planet during a movie night once and all of the other guys kept saying "That's just like ", and I had to remind them that Forbidden Planet was done decades before those other movies with which they were familiar.
Its only purpose is to knock holes in a firewall by untrusted / untrustworthy devices.
It's main purpose is to knock holes in the firewall for devices on the LAN, behind the router. If I have an untrusted device on my side of the network that's a problem that I should fix, even without UPnP.
Here's a question for
Peer to peer communication works better with it. So things like Skype as well as multi player gaming.
it's baked into how we talk and act
But we don't talk and act on a loan application. We're discussing an AI making a decision based on features related to loan default probabilities; don't change the scope of the discussion. If the AI isn't told about race, it can't be racist.
debate is about whether race is a valid grounds on which to judge someone.
Isn't that exactly the point? If the AI isn't told about race, but still recommends "racist" outcomes, there's more going on than the race of the person. The AI isn't being racist, the race of the candidate is being ignored; the person is only being judged on valid grounds.
I somehow suspect that Windows won't exactly give me the option to say 'no' to this update.
I believe to get it you first have to log into an account with administrative perms so you can be prompted about something. So if you stick to a standard user account m you'll never be upgraded.
This actually makes sense. So many jobs have been saved that not as many people need to find new ones.
Umm, you could have lots of people looking for a job, with no new jobs being added. One of the factors as to why the expectations are what they were, is due to unemployed people entering the job market. So now those people have entered the job market, only to find that less jobs were created.
[T]he proposed law would have ended “neglect” investigations of parents who simply let their children play outside, walk to school, wait in the car for under 15 minutes in temperate conditions, or come home as a latchkey kid. If the parents were otherwise neglectful or abusive, of course, the state was allowed to probe. But if the parents simply trusted their kids with a little independence, the worry that they could face charges would be lifted.
And so Arkansas voted to preserve the right of its authorities to barge in on families who simply want their kids to have a tiny taste of the independence most of us remember from our own childhoods. Why give kids freedom — why give parents freedom — when you can take it away so easily and say you’re championing safety in the process?
The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.