That's correct. Note that I never said it was the FCC's job to prevent protectionism in other countries. I was simply answering deciplex's question of how net neutrality could harm the American economy if it were only enforced in the United States.
While that scenario is certainly better for American consumers, it's not better for Netflix. Both companies will have to innovate and compete in America, but Braziliflix will essentially get the Brazilian market for free.
It affects American businesses and therefore affects the American economy.
For instance, let's say Brazil's telcos started throttling their citizens' access to Netflix, but not to Braziliflix, a hypothetical Brazilian version of Netflix. That could prevent Netflix from gaining traction in Brazil. Meanwhile, Braziliflix would be free to compete on an even playing field for customers in the US.
For what it's worth, I felt the same way when I first dogfooded the new multi-column layout. I couldn't figure out how to read my stream. While reading a post, I kept getting distracted thinking about where I should focus my attention on next. It made scanning my stream more stressful and I was confident that I did not like it. This was before they added the option to switch to a single stream view, so I couldn't do much but submit my feedback and deal with it.
Then, one day, the G+ team added the option to switch back to single stream view. I thought "great!" and immediately went into G+ to switch back to single-stream mode. And I hated it. I hated having to scroll so much. I hated not being able to scan a large number of posts with a quick glance. I hated all the unused space on either side of the stream.
I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but maybe give it a week before giving up on it. You may just find that it grows on you.
The title is a bit sensationalist. None of the famous animal ones were destroyed, just some of the straight line ones. It's ridiculous that a company felt that they could just quarry over part of a UNESCO world heritage site, but the title makes it seem like they're all gone when that isn't the case.
No, people should not, and do not, have the right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, especially when what they're doing puts other people's lives in danger. That's why we have laws against things like drinking and driving.
That's not to say that I think Glass should be outlawed while driving. But lawmakers certainly have the right and responsibility to question whether it should be.
Very cool. Although now it's going to be even more difficult to tell whether someone is talking to you, their Bluetooth headset, or their augmented reality glasses.
I'm hoping they build in Google Translate into these things. They could be the real life version of the Babel fish.
My non-programmer friends and family are always bewildered when I tell them that I hope my daughter doesn't grow up to be a programmer. The reason why is because I'm afraid her life would be like the OP's. There is indeed a subtle sexism in our industry. That's why things like yesterday's Sqoot screwup happen so frequently.
Of course, every workplace is different and I'm sure there are plenty of places where women don't have to deal with the bullshit described in this article. However, they are far from the norm. I can see why the OP would want to leave the industry rather than be the person constantly reporting people to HR and lecturing them about proper behavior. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also extremely uncomfortable and just as likely to create an even more hostile working environment than before.
You clearly have not experienced discrimination before. It's not just the act of being discriminated against, it's the memories that it invokes and the reminder of how little has changed.
It's not just that women reading this flyer wouldn't be interested in showing up, it's that they are instantly reminded of how the programming world perceives them and their place in the industry. It reminds them of the sexism they've endured their entire professional careers and it reminds them of how little has changed.
"Lots of hot men serving beers" isn't a very comparable example because male programmers haven't been discriminated against (at least, not professionally). A better example would be if the flyer were changed to "lots of Mexicans serving beers" or "lots of African Americans serving beers". Wouldn't that offend you even if you were able to somehow derive how the marketing people arrived at this approach?
Sad, but inevitable. I owned a copy growing up and it was an invaluable source of information. I remember flipping through the volumes and marveling at how much information I had at my fingertips. For whatever reason my computer has never given me that same feeling of awe and wonder. There's just something about staring at a bookshelf filled with those tomes of knowledge that triggers my thirst for information.
"But we have the technology, Google has the technology, we have the brainpower in this country, we certainly can figure it out."
Even if this were true, just because Google has the capability to do this doesn't mean every company does. If it costs Google $X million to prevent online piracy on their sites, is it reasonable to expect every web startup to do the same?
That would solve the problem of people accidentally buying fake Chanel products. Is that really what Chanel is concerned about here? When I first read this article, I assumed that Chanel was trying to cut down on the number of people who deliberately purchase fake Chanel products since they cost a fraction of the price and are not easily discernible from the real thing.
The safe withdrawal rate -- that is, the rate at which you can withdraw from retirement accounts without too much risk of running out of money eventually -- is generally considered to be around 4%. With $900,000 saved up, that means the OP can spend about $36,000 / year from his nest egg without too much risk. The article states that they live as if they made $35,000 - $40,000 / year. So the income from their retirement combined with their side business should be enough to at least sustain their current lifestyle. I have no idea if their $35,000 - $40,000 estimate covers health insurance, so it's hard to say whether they are at risk of being wiped out by medical expenses.
Maybe the neutrinos that appeared 3 hours before the event are from another event altogether (one that occurred even further away, whose light particles haven't even reached us yet)?
While I agree with the sentiment in this thread that developers aren't going to be flocking over from GitHub anytime soon, at the very least this should help keep GitHub motivated (not that they've given us any reason for concern thus far). Competition is a good thing.