It is almost certainly legal to hire based on assessments of intelligence. If I insisted in a job interview that 4+9=12, the moon is simply a sky-reflection of the lights from Manhattan, and that I can’t stand to be in the same room as tall people since they affect gravity in disturbing ways, you would draw conclusions about my intelligence. Would you then avoid hiring me?
IQ tests might be illegal under some circumstances, but I would point out that they are not a reliable measure of intelligence anyways, making this all a bit of a moot point.
I am surprised you feel that way in a time where much of our government is controlled by Republicans, including the presidency. I think I understand why you feel that way given how localized politics can be, but I would counter that it does seem unlikely the 50+ million registered Republican voters will be made homeless and jobless by the government they presently control.
> how are you even going to download a third party browser, if the OS doesn't come with a client you can use to download it with?
Software was distributed offline as well. It seems like a long time ago now, but there was no shortage of AOL installation discs at the time.
(In fact, I believe both Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator were distributed on floppy disks at one point, although that would have been long before the antitrust case.)
2001 was at an inflection point where it was very rapidly becoming clear that argument was archaic. In any case, the fact that everyone else was giving away browsers for free is hardly a great argument that Microsoft should be prevented distributing it for free also, and if they can why not let them bundle it?
The world of 2001 was very rapidly becoming the connected world we're in now, and imposing a restriction on anyone like that now would just seem ludicrous and in fact user hostile, as it was. To me and I think anyone else paying attention back then, that was very obvious.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but while it is certainly uncommon, it is absolutely possible to directly deliver mail to a recipient's SMTP server. In many cases, this can be done without any authentication whatsoever.
I run my own mail server. When I send an email via the web interface, would you not agree the MUA is attempting to directly connect to the destination host?
Depending on different factors, it may be classified as spam by the recipient, but from a reputable IP address it shouldn’t normally be rejected outright. Of course there are other factors like SPF, greylisting, etc... but email can be directly delivered.
If you send from non-SPF listed IPs you will get rejected in many places and most likely marked as spam in those you don't. SPF particularly and DKIM and other anti-spam measure are in wide spread use and enforced by the receiving SMTP server either directly or via spam scoring system rules.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the protocol, but your download speeds would be much slower without uploading. I believe that with BitTorrent, you are penalized/rewarded somehow for not uploading vs. uploading.
Not really, trackers will impose restrictions on users based on seeding ratios, but if you just DHT a random torrent whoever gets bandwidth is more down to random luck than priority towards other seeders. There is just no protocol level mechanism that prioritizes seeding to someone with a higher upload - the choice of who to seed to is up mostly to the implementation.
I've done a fair amount of work importing CSV files into SQL Server 2008. I have no idea if this is still broken, but I can confirm that 2008 mishandles CSV files where the character used to surround string columns appears escaped within the column itself. Such as:
This is a perfectly valid CSV file, but SSIS will choke. I ended up writing a custom script component to load these files anyways.
That said, I absolutely love SQL Server, and I think this guy is a little over the top in his religious hatred of it. In an Enterprise setting, it works really, really well.
I may have misunderstood this aspect of the movie, but it seemed to me that the government was determined to convince the public that space exploration, and NASA, were excesses of the past to be avoided. The spacecraft they asked Cooper to pilot was a type of craft that crashed during his testing of the ship, prior to the public (and false) shutdown of space spending.
If this ship had the capability to repeatedly leave planets without the rockets shown in the beginning, would they have been able to reveal that to the public? The rockets could have been used for the launch from earth to avoid making that disclosure to the public.
Also, it seems like another possibility is that it was simply done to conserve fuel. Maybe the small spacecraft was capable of holding enough fuel for the 3-5 launches shown, but no more? If it wasn’t capable of holding additional fuel that might be needed for the mission, the extra rockets for an initial launch seem like a fair idea, even if they were very expensive.
I don't know anything about this, so I could be very wrong, but to me it seems like there are some plausible explanations.
> The spacecraft they asked Cooper to pilot was a type of craft that crashed during his testing of the ship
The part that's boggling my mind is they said he crashed because of one of the first "gravity variations"..... which we now know he (or future humans) created.
So I'm assuming him crashing was somehow important to the overall plan, but I have not quite figured it out yet. Maybe they didn't want him to be one of the Lazarus people, because then he wouldn't have been around to "help" his daughter get the hints.
It is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that this is actually an error. It sounds like he may be in a position to directly make that change to Chrome, but is trying to clarify that his thoughts on Firefox and Safari are his, and he can't speak on their behalf. When you read it that way, it makes sense.
What's more, Firefox previously adopted a related thing that agl invented (HSTS preloads in general), so he has personal experience of their being amenable to this sort of thing.
A major frustration for me is that OneDrive does not show up as a folder in Windows 8.1, unless you link your Windows account with a Microsoft account. I absolutely won't be logging into my computers with my Microsoft account, which has made OneDrive much more difficult to use. It works well from Office, but nothing else. I've tried installing the old version of the client, and it fails with an error that I already have a newer version.
It sounds like ExpanDrive would probably solve this issue for me. (At least until Microsoft hopefully adds back support for using OneDrive with local accounts at some point.)
IQ tests might be illegal under some circumstances, but I would point out that they are not a reliable measure of intelligence anyways, making this all a bit of a moot point.