If code is speech, does this mean anyone can write code to perform any kind of task (nefarious or otherwise) and be protected by the First Amendment? It seems difficult to parse that someone could write some code that for example, to break someone's pacemaker or life support machine and that person would be protected by free speech.
Maybe in that scenario, it would be the author who writes that code who would be protected but the person who executes the deadly code who is breaking the law?
I seem to remember from physics class that mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so how is it possible for galaxies to be unreachable if you managed to travel at the speed of light?
The UK still has a good selection of sharp, merciless interviewers. My favourite is Jeremy Paxman, he's quite a polarising personality but cuts through bs like paper.
It would be cool to isolate yourself just to return and be blown away by all the technological advancements made. Probably not worth it overall though.
After you submit your email, the big white sign-up box led me to believe you had to sign up to actually get the book. Only after had I signed up did I notice the little paragraph saying the email had been sent.
Personally, "EBOOK WAS SENT TO YOUR E-MAIL" should be much bigger compared to sign up. I understand you want people to sign up but concerning UX, its not pleasant.
I always wondered why there was this heterogeneity between consoles and PCs. You're playing the same games, why would it be good for anyone to have to develop/buy something twice or for one exclusively.
Hopefully the Steam Box destroys this distinction and makes a more consistent and flexible gaming landscape.
Maybe in that scenario, it would be the author who writes that code who would be protected but the person who executes the deadly code who is breaking the law?