Hoffmannnn
The competent responses would be:
"We DO have evidence that X DID NOT happen", or
"We DO have evidence that X DID happen".
A bag of rocks also has "no evidence that Wes or anybody else accessed any user data". Would you trust a bag of rocks with your computer security?
Insurance 2.0, crowdfunded payouts... You talk about a lot of things that you think will happen, or hope will happen. Now tell me how you're going to MAKE it happen.
You're going to start an insurance 2.0 company. You're going to start a crowd funding nonprofit foundation for people spurned by their insurance. Tell me how this is a donation, rather than a handout.
How will you establish a multiplier effect for donations?
How will a donation continue serving the cause in perpetuity?
How would a donation help me, if I got into a similar situation?
Even if the insurance company loses, they aren't going to suddenly come to the realization that they've been wrong all along, and start paying out more frequently.
I guess I don't see what this crowdfunding campaign is selling which would serve the greater good. Funding the EFF means that you're contributing to the greater good of privacy, etc. Funding the ACLU means that you're contributing to the greater good of civil rights, etc. Funding this campaign means that a single person can't or won't find a lawyer under any payment arrangement, contingency or otherwise.
As an investor in a venture capital firm, though, you would expect the firm to award funding to the best, not to the insiders. As a politician interested in fostering a successful startup environment in your district, you would expect the firm to award funding to the best, not to the insiders. As a fledgling startup yourself, you would expect the firm to award funding to the best, not to the insiders. As Simon Cowell, you would want to pick yourself. Therein lies the issue. Only Simon Cowell wants Simon Cowell to win over other, more qualified startups.
Don't kid yourself into thinking they wouldn't do the same for you -- instead, think of it as a mutual agreement to provide services to each other when needed.
Why go there in the first place? It didn't look like the government was offering any sort of funding or tax relief for somebody who decides to start their business in Spain instead of anywhere else.
My dual monitor setup has one landscape, one portrait, and I'm never going back. Viewing documents & code is just so much more convenient.
On one hand, I exchanged $X,000 for the knowledge I would potentially gain from the class. It seems like I'm within my rights to intentionally NOT learn, and thus waste my money.
On the other hand, other people also paid $X,000, possibly with the expectation that they would get engaging discussions with the whole class, rather than just the professor.
So which is it? When you pay good money for a class, do you expect, in return, that the whole class participates? It seems like everyone would get better results that way, but then again, the whole class isn't getting compensated by you, so why should you expect anything from then in return? It is indeed a tragedy of the commons.
MY use case is, I want to quickly move the maximized window around between monitors, or to drag it away from the top, and thus de-maximize it. The way every other application does it, is by leaving a title bar at the top, which you can click and drag.
If I instead wanted to switch tabs, I would use the usual shortcuts, ctrl tab and ctrl shift tab. In my mind, this is a better option than breaking the "move window by clicking titlebar" behavior.