lanaius

You must be doing something correct since RES updated to better support you.

The annoying part is that you have to jump through cookie hoops to get the file, even though pro design appears to be affiliated with Adobe. Adobe does run a "hidden" FTP with installers for everything back to like version 9 of the software in the suite (excepting, for some odd reason, CS 5.5).

Setting aside all of the other existing information, the crux of many of the arguments in the article depend on the government knowing the use of particular addresses. That's data most city/county/state governments already have laws that they should know (for tax assessments, occupancy limits, health inspections, census, etc.) and yet they frequently have incorrect or incomplete information on this.

While pervasive tracking is indeed a problematic state, I still find it humorous at how competent we truly believe the government to be in retaining accuracy in all this data given how often our interactions with government and private businesses revolve around them FIXING their data about us.

Not that it directly relates to your comment, but Midtown Atlanta is filled with brand-new high-rise condominium buildings at an incredibly high price. They continue to build more of them even right now, so there is still healthy demand there.

They have a lot of shots of hardware design and testing that at most charitable strongly imply they built the hardware from the bottom up. Having done so and then being intentionally vague about any of the hardware is offsetting.

That's not to mention the fact that the ONLY stretch goals are about making more apps for the watch. If you're serious about building a smartwatch you better offer people a damn good reason to buy it, not sit on your ass waiting for people to pay you to make the thing useful.

Except in the case where the Kickstart is funded, the money is taken, and then the project never delivers. That's of course the risk, but if the project never really intended to deliver (i.e. a scam or fraud) Kickstarter can potentially lean back and say that it's not a store so you can't reasonably expect any return. The problem with that position is that CHARITY fraud is also a real thing and there's a whole host of agencies that care about it (FTC, FBI, IRS).

I guess my point is that whether or not you expect a tangible reward, the outcome of a Kickstart is unchanged: your contribution is expected to create something new in the world. If Kickstarter systematically ignores fraudulent projects and "inventors" then the problem is deeper than simply not supporting what you don't like, inasmuch as saying "if a Ponzi scheme doesn't sound good, then don't invest in it" doesn't actually make Ponzi schemes legal.

For me part of the issue is that I have enough money troubles where I am in life (and I'll admit Coin isn't probably targeted at me in that case) that I don't have time to worry about there being issues with the device that delivers purchases. I don't need, for example, one of those issues being that something that should hit a credit card hits a debit card or vice versa. When I give someone plastic they can't change the payment account when I'm not looking.

"Complete discharge can happen even when the car is plugged in if it isn’t receiving sufficient current to charge, which can be caused by something as simple as using an extension cord. "

Just to clarify the conversation.

It seems less troubling that they would go through the trouble of specially "inflating" scores and more troubling that their scaling model is apparently incapable of responding to quick changes in computational demand. If benchmarks fail to engage all 4 cores at rated speed, than does anything? Are these advertised quad-core phones really just single-core phones that have but aren't capable of using four cores?

Wouldn't the sensor be a little more important in this case than the lens?

I read the "unlikely" as sarcasm implying that the events were potentially quite likely, particularly given the structuring of the contract.

When I didn't want to keep doing homework in High School, they dropped me from "honors" math to regular math and gave me poor grades. They continued to give me bad grades occasionally (since I didn't do the homework, occasionally) but it seemed like everyone met a decent compromise and the teacher didn't have any particular ire towards me.

If Blender is GPL but the plug-in interface is Python and thus only GPL-Compatible, why can't the plugin be GPL-Compatible and thus not require providing sources?

I probably wouldn't make a scrapbook with it.

I have been told by other foreign graduate students that getting married in another country (possibly even married at all) violates that student visa agreements. One girl is French and marrying an American, she was told that if she goes to France to have a wedding ceremony that she would not be allowed back in to America. This sounds exactly like what happened to this student. It's shameful and bizarre, but it appears like these are the rules however poorly they are communicated (my friend had NO idea as the university filled out her visa application and did so incorrectly 4 years ago).

Except the minor detail that being for-profit does not, itself, imply that the company has shareholders.

The argument against this, and I make this as a jaded and struggling graduate student so accept that bias, is that there is no acceptable outlet for negative results. There is also no acceptable outlet for those who consistently produce negative results and so, as I'm sure everyone understands, there is tremendous pressure to produce positive and interesting results. We hear about the times that this is forced due to manipulation and falsification and this is never okay, but there are a great many times where it falls into a nebulous gray area. We double and triple check our code, verify simulation results, and run down the checklists but that never guarantees that we do not have such "excel column errors".

If data and code are open this is fantastic for science and progress because errors do not replicate and permute but it can be terrible for individual scientists and graduate students. As always, it comes down to money. If we are forced to correct or even worse retract a scientific publication, the community (both local and worldwide) bares down on you like a knife. The stakes are so high that not only is falsification lethal, in many cases honest mistakes can be lethal as well. Conversely one cannot take eternity flipping every stone to bulletproof every possible single problem and it can be very hard to identify which stones to check!

This is not a defense of closed work and closed data, but it's a realization that opening data and code is not a simple and straightforward process. There are severe and deeply embedded cultural problems that make post-publication sharing difficult.