The real benefit of artificial non-descript meat sausage will be ending overfishing? I'm assuming you mean when they come out with artificial fish meat, but I can't find any mention of that in the article.
There already are artificial flavors, even artificial meat flavors. McDonalds french fries are sprayed with it. The reason he wants to make this a burger isn't because they've made artificial cow, it's because the artificial meat has the consistency of ground beef at best.
It most certainly is. Vegetarian bacon, while good, does not taste like bacon. And bacon with all the fat removed does not taste like bacon. It may be good, but it's not bacon.
If they hadn't made this judgment, would there be anything stopping you or I from legally attaching GPS devices to government official's cars and recording their movements?
They should overturn the ruling and make it fair game for anyone to track anyone else. Then we can make google maps mashups for tracking each other and government officials.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if not, why then would they regard their formula as such a secret that the only two people allowed to know it may not fly together in case the plane should go down? As a diversion form their business practices?
"In fact, the United States (and most other nations) expressly prohibits the sale and trade of coca leaves. In order for Coca-Cola to continue to exist in its current form, the company has a special arrangement with the Drug Enforcement Administration"
The article makes it seem as though Coca-Cola has an exclusive arrangement that involves funneling leaves through a chemicals company. It doesn't mention anything about Stepan being the only chemical company that can process the leaves for other reasons.
Sure, I guess if you fundamentally misunderstand MVC but not in the real world.
You don't have render your view on the server, using a js framework is perfectly fine in MVC. There are plenty of rails plugins to make this even easier and I whole-heartedly disagree with, "Rails-style MVC frameworks have a horrible routing solution for RESTFul JSON APIs". Rails has simple routing that works great for restful resources and auto renders json that can be easily overridden.
Having a unified/standardized REST interface for web services would no doubt be nice, but it's existence has little to nothing to do with MVC.
I think the doom and gloom is a bit over-hyped, and the other browser authors probably have no choice but to implement the webkit prefixes. They just don't have the install numbers to do otherwise. I don't like the situation but I see it as inevitable and not that big of a deal.
The only way for this to change, is to build into the spec that once a feature is no longer experimental its vendor specific tag name gets deprecated and then removed and the deprecation warning needs to show up in the web inspector / firebug. Otherwise devs will literally think if it ain't broke don't fix it.
This is a job for the W3C. They have the task now of convincing browser manufacturers to implement this and to really start picking up the pace standardizing the web. There is never going to be enough public outcry to get people to stop using the webkit only prefixes unless other browser install numbers pick up.
Yay, loosening regulations on wall street. Lets let startups without enough financial knowledge and market power to create a real IPO jump into being publicly traded.
The only real lesson in Moneyball is do what you love and don't let others tell you not to.
What I find most interesting about the story is the different effect it has on people. Business types see it as "Take a great risk and it'll pay off (literally)." Science types see it as "Math works".
The reality is, you just have to do what you want to do and not care if other people tell you you're crazy. Was a situation like Moneyball an exception to the rule? Hell yes. But with out those 1 in 1000 exceptions to the rule we'd have very little to show for 50 thousand years on the planet.
Mmm, I think this really highlights the issue that facebook is not a public space. It's private. You can campaign all you want but this isn't womens lib. This is a private business that has their own rules. You want real freedom of expression? Facebook doesn't care. They just want their earnings to be as high as possible.
I'm by no means saying that facebook is doing anything close to the right thing. Exactly opposite. But I think theres a gross misconception among the general public that people somehow have any rights whatsoever on facebook.
For me, a huge justification for piracy: archives.
Not just you, but also the US supreme court. If you already own a copy of that movie on any format it's legal to have 1 digital backup and you can acquire that backup by downloading it. Where most people get in trouble is by re-uploading it. If you do that, you're distributing something you have no right to distribute. And the most successful aspect of bittorrent is how efficiently it turns you into a distributer.