> A troll who comes after them and knows that they sue even when a case is backed away from (regardless of prejudice) will be less likely to drop the case at that point.
Perhaps, but it also serves to deter future trolls from engaging Newegg in court over patents. Newegg is making it clear that if you sue them over a patent, that suit is going to be taken to a verdict, whether you like it or not.
My favorite of the wavelengths presented is radio, as right in the middle you see a bright radio source that I'm guessing is Sagittarius A, (probably) the location of the Milky Way's supermassive black hole.
Sure, three months is a long time to fix an issue, but what does Microsoft have to gain by taking longer to fix an issue of this severity than it believes it needs to? If Microsoft released the fixes when they were going to, and Google then released the details of the issues and when they first reported them, Google could still make a stink about Microsoft's turn-around time on critical security bugs, and there wouldn't be any gap between global notification of the issues and a readily available fix for them.
Put another way, Google may have just notified the world of black-hat hackers of an issue they weren't otherwise aware of, an issue that demonstrably will not be patched for some time. If that is the case, then Google just recklessly endangered people's computers in the interest of raising awareness of Microsoft's poor turn around time on these issues. There is also the very real chance that this issue was already known by the black-hat community, in which case there isn't nearly as much lost by reporting here, but that's a gamble Google is making in order to make a point.
These regulations seem like a win for Bitcoin as a currency. Most of the clauses themselves don't seem so onerous for any company that intends on legally dealing in Bitcoin, the government gets its framework for dealing with fraud and money laundering, and the licensing itself should act as a signal to worried parties that dealing in Bitcoin with licensed operators is legal, and that the operator itself has taken sufficient measures to guarantee the safety of all funds being managed.
I'm having some difficulty getting competitors, with no indication of how long it will take to find one, and when I did find one, about 3 seconds into the game I was told I lost with my opponent having performed no moves. I feel like this needs some work.
If I had to refrain from saying any joke which someone in the world might find hurtful, I wouldn't have very many jokes to say. Besides, in this case, he was talking about releasing pathogens upon, or lighting up with a flamethrower, half of the babies in a hospital. I can't imagine there are too many people who've had something like that happen to their child.
That is not the same situation. With a politician, one source can contribute X, and another source can contribute Y, and both of their contributions influence the politician. In other words, if the politician loses a source of donations equal to 90% of his or her donations, there is probably nothing that would replace that donation. The only supply is percentage of the politician's time so to speak, which might effect how much someone is willing to donate in the absence of another donation, but probably not in the way the politician would like.
With Mozilla, the supply is one item, the default search engine for the search bar, something which has high demand. That means if Google were to become less interested in paying for the search bar, Bing would be waiting at the gates to do so. They could lose money if that were to happen, given that Google was the highest bidder, but that in no way makes them beholden to Google.
Consider an alternate universe where Southwest Airlines has a worse reputation due to a variety of bad practices they've engaged in. These banner ads have the potential for pushing many hits describing these practices further down the page, stifling the ability for organic results to properly reflect public opinion on a company.
So, that seems like a reasonable answer, but historically that wasn't sufficient for me. When I was an HSBC customer in college a few years back, I had disabled overdrafting because I did not want to receive overdraft fees and, in a pinch, I could use a credit card if my charge was declined.
One day I checked my account and discovered that I had accrued a number of overdraft fees. Apparently sometimes merchants (namely gas stations) will put a temporary charge of a dollar against your credit card, then later correct the charge to the correct price. This caused my account to overdraft as HSBC didn't deny the correction, then with my account overdrafted as of the date in question, all subsequent valid charges I had done against the account assuming a one dollar gas charge were made as overdraft charges. Contacting customer service and reminding them that I had in fact disabled overdraft was not enough to convince them of anything other than giving me a one-time partial credit of fees, so I switched banks.
I don't know if that is still how things are done over at HSBC, but ultimately the point is that disabling overdrafting is not some panacea for the problem, as ultimately there are situations that can still get you in trouble.
So getting to the first principles of your response, you believe that any interview where someone attempts to ascertain your technical abilities is a series of impractical challenges, regardless of the contents of that interview. That in itself seems a bit absurd, as it implies that a company looking to hire an engineer is being impractical if it any way attempts to learn the knowledge that engineer has by speaking to him or her.
You also believe that the power dynamics of an interview are different than the power dynamics of a company, as in an interview making a mistake can mean the difference between being hired and not. I don't disagree with you here, as ultimately making a mistake in an asymmetric negotiation at a company won't always get you fired. In this case, what I was providing a response to my parent comment, that if asymmetric negotiations are a problem for a person then a company will never work for them. These two things are not exactly the same, though I wouldn't fault someone for taking difficulty handling one to imply difficulty handling the other.
Companies are chock full of asymmetric negotiations. Aside from obvious things like discussions with your manager, companies have all sorts of structured and unstructured power asymmetries.
Neither of us have statistics on that, so a yes/no battle here is pointless. I and many others find it to be a useful signal when someone demonstrates intense anxiety under pressure, you and many others do not. Agree to disagree.
I'm sorry to hear about how stressed you get during interviews, but unfortunately the stress you demonstrate during technical interviews is a useful heuristic when determining whether or not a candidate would be a good fit for a company. Is a good signal all of the time? No. Is it a good signal most of the time? Probably.
According to wikipedia, 7.9 people per 100,000, so ~21k people, get Lyme Disease every year. Imagine if suddenly ~16k fewer people got the disease, do you think those people would find the vaccine terrible?
Perhaps, but it also serves to deter future trolls from engaging Newegg in court over patents. Newegg is making it clear that if you sue them over a patent, that suit is going to be taken to a verdict, whether you like it or not.