Or they use a device like a Tablo to get free OTA TV with all the advantages of streaming to devices, no subscription needed. I've done this for several years. I can be out working in the yard and pull out my phone to watch couple minutes of a football game on ABC or whatever, as long as I'm in WiFi range.
The conservative perspective is not, and has never been, that poor people deserve to stay poor. It is that I can and will give my money to poor people, and you're free to do likewise, but we're not going to point a gun at old Steve and make him do the same.
Now that gun-pointing redistribution programs are fully entrenched, some people are still trying to have some say - ANY say - in where their money goes.
Biblical eyewitness testimony also requires multiple witnesses:
> One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Witnessing falsely was rightly a very big deal to them. It's one of the Ten Commandments, right up there with worshipping idols or committing murder. And according to the following verses of this passage, anyone who witnesses falsely will receive the exact same punishment that the accused would have received.
Viasat also heavily throttles video streams, so as not to allow a user to accidentally reach their monthly data cap in the first day or two.
I currently average 25-30 Mbps on speedtest.net and 700 kbps (not a typo) on fast.com. And still I reach the data cap in two weeks or less. Fortunately (?) it's a soft cap, not a hard one. All it means is no streaming anything in the evening till the month rolls over. (And, perversely, you don't want to do any large downloads until after hitting the cap!)
I don't understand where this question is coming from. How many Americans have you met who believe the moon landings were fake? For me that number is 0.
Beware of polls showing a small percentage of people believe something. Anything under 10% is subject to the Lizardman's Constant[0]; i.e., there are enough pranksters, people who misheard the question, et cetera, to form a measurable part of the population.
I'm just tired of "commuter" EVs that don't have enough range for my 30-minute commute (17 miles each way).
I'd need at least a 60 mile range to be able to get to the farthest reaches of the nearest city and back. That seems to put me in Tesla territory, and the price doesn't make sense for the purpose.
> A professor naturally speaks with the authority of their corresponding institution
Does she though? She had every reason to believe her choice of email address would remain private.
By a similar token, I am currently working for <REDACTED> (on lunch break) and using a computer belonging to said entity. If you managed to work out what <REDACTED> is, would I retroactively be considered to be speaking for it?
One of Red Alert's hacks was making dogs (the unit) distinct from dogs (the projectile). That is, a dog was a dog until it began its attack. At that point it transitioned into a dog projectile, which looked like a leaping dog but wasn't targetable. Then when it collided with the enemy (infantry only), the enemy was insta-killed and the dog transitioned back into an interactible unit.
What this meant is that you could use rules.ini to make an anti-infantry submarine that launched dogs, if you so desired. Or a dog artillery. Or a dog man that used his dog gun to shoot dogs at men.
I'm currently behind a corporate firewall which blocks Imgur. Not being very familiar with Futurama, I thought the entire joke was that the quote for episode 1 was "Episode 1", the quote for episode 2 was "Episode 2", and so on.
I admire your optimistic view of how many users would read such a manual when all they want to know is why doesn't this code do what it's supposed to and can you hurry I need this by 5 pm?
But... I do agree that a detailed, educational multi-step page (with examples!) would be an improvement over the current here-are-the-8-rules-for-asking-ok-now-have-fun page.
I'm not that familiar with soccer stats, but this section needs a reply:
> A “shutdown” cornerback like Richard Sherman can be a star in the NFL thanks to interceptions, broken up plays and tackles. “Lock down NBA defenders” like Bruce Bowen and Dennis Rodman can prove their worth with steals, blocks and rebounds. Football has goals and assists, that’s it.
Just as in soccer, those "counting stats" are not great measures of defensive ability. The recently retired cornerback Darrelle Revis was regarded as the best defensive player in the NFL from about 2009-2011. Yet he did not rack up interceptions or pass breakups -- in fact, in 2010, he had 0 interceptions and only 9 pass breakups over 13 games. Why? Because the receivers he was covering were never open, so quarterbacks rarely attempted to pass in his direction.
Similarly, steals, blocks, and rebounds are only a vague indicator of defensive ability; it's never a bad thing to get a steal or a block, but if you routinely leave your man to try to poke the ball away from someone else's man, you're likely hurting your team overall. The NBA has been working on developing better stats, including deflections (you get your hand on a pass but don't necessarily come away with the steal) and shots defended (you're within a short distance of a shooter). But Darryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets and a well-known stats nerd, has said in a Reddit AMA that no publicly available defensive statistic is useful.
Part of this is because all three sports in question are team sports, which means a great deal depends on the defensive scheme. You may not block shots, but is it your job to block shots or to stop the ballhandler from getting near the basket? You don't get tackles, but is it your job to get tackles or to funnel the ballcarrier right into the linebackers?
It's extremely difficult for any outsider to determine the defensive effectiveness of a player. The only thing we can offer is guesswork.
This is the paradox: Every new language feature in C++ has, as you say, a rational argument for inclusion. Yet when you combine them, you get a language that I will never use if I have a choice.
You can either flag for another moderator to take a look, or (better) bring it up publicly on https://meta.stackoverflow.com. Most times you'll get an answer from the moderator in question.
(Also, that's a... very broad definition of "moderator abuse". The question is still there and no one can post an answer to compete with yours if it's closed.)