How are they going to lose brand recognition, when a majority of people do not associate JavaScript with Oracle? The only language I associate with Oracle is Java.
Regarding the "Learn by using." comment -- this is how I am when it comes to interfaces. Actually exploring them and seeing what things are. Unfortunately, a larger number of users seem to be the opposite of that anymore (at least in my field). More and more users expect everything to be pointed out to them and they don't exhibit that same desire to explore. It's sad, really.
Tell that to the any number of people that have fallen for similar (or even more basic) scams. Unfortunately, not everyone is Internet savvy enough to know what's legitimate and what's a scam.
A good deal of that same group can get scammed over the phone. The issue doesn't seem to be so much about specific technology.
Granted, domains are "backwards", and browsers could be made to match known banking sites against every URL to warn of scams. But at the point where people are clicking scammy bit.ly links too, the domain part doesn't seem to be so key anymore.
In HTML (emails) you can make the url look like the real thing onscreen. Should GMail alert when anchor text is a different link than it actually links to? (Maybe it already does?)
In my opinion, if you want to judge this as fraud, you have to do it, at least in part, by looking at it through the lense of a regular passenger.
If a regular passenger who pays for each ticket individually did this, would they have a problem? Of course not. AA could only dream of such a passenger.
They abused people's generally poor financial reasoning to claim fraud uncontested. It's easy to get people to think of this as "free flights for life, poor airline abused" simply because the ticket was so massively undervalued compared to the use potential. In reality, each and every one of those seats were paid for, AA were just upset with themselves for the price they charged and fabricated a fraud claim to end it.
These are two different products, akin to a subscription service vs outright buying something, so the comparison isn't apt. You can return something to the big box store where you bought it if you don't use it. You're not entitled to that with the subscription service.
It's not a subscription, he outright prepaid for the rest of his entire life, for the service he was paying for individually. So similar is the product, that a separate system wasn't even designed for it and he'd still get stuff like airmiles per flight.
It was a prepay for the same product, not a subscription for a new one.
SQLyog is the same way. My only wish is that they would release a native Mac version. The last time I upgraded, I went with a 5-year upgrade plan because of how much I appreciate the software and the team behind it.
That's not really how I interpreted their message. It's more likely that a woman is homeless due to an abusive relationship than it is a man being homeless due to an abusive relationship. That isn't saying women are less likely to be homeless due to drugs. Independent statements.
You can't summarize a 4-paragraph nuanced discussion with "Because it is." by cherry-picking one sentence from one study. Even the Wikipedia link, which is likely to be biased in the direction of older research simply due to the volume, points out that there is significant debate around this.
Recent studies conclude with a much more equal gender distribution among victims, as OP points out.
For anybody wondering if there is a difference between domestic abuse and domestic violence, according to the legal system, in the US, there is no clear delineation.
"Although some states use the term domestic violence while others use domestic abuse, the terms describe similar conduct."
If you're going to disagree with someone, it's your responsibility to substantiate that disagreement. If that's too much of an effort, best not to say anything at all.
That isn't what I said. I stated that it is more likely that a woman would be homeless from domestic abuse, not that men aren't the target of domestic abuse.
Why would domestic abuse cause women to become homeless more often than men? If a woman runs away from her abuser, there are countless shelters she can go to. If a man runs away from his abuser, there is really nowhere he can go.
Share of homelessness due to an abusive relationship + share of homelessness due to drugs + share of homelessness for all other reasons = 1.
If one of those variables goes higher, one or both of the others must go lower. On the assumption that one of those reasons gets more common "all else equal"... both of the others will go lower.
The OP didn't say that women were homeless due to abuse and not drugs and that men were homeless due to drugs/PTSD.
In fact if you read what they wrote, they didn't specify sex at all. A man can be homeless due to an abusive relationship, they never said they couldn't. Hence independent statements. nsnick was the one assuming something.
You are correct in the zero sum outcome for the //ENTIRE// homeless population; however you are not correct in the sense of a hypothetical subject being homeless.
A singular case subject/family could be homeless for MULTIPLE reasons or None (other than other of course) outlined above.
> You are correct in the zero sum outcome for the //ENTIRE// homeless population; however you are not correct in the sense of a hypothetical subject being homeless.
This is wrong. What's correct as a description of the entire female homeless population is equally correct as a probability assignment for one element of it.
Your second sentence is unrelated to your first, and also applies equally well to the entire population as to an individual sample from it. It is arguing that the sum I describe is in fact more than 1. That is defensible, but it won't make the statements independent; they aren't.
I already acknowledged this in a cousin comment. As long as they can also be homeless for a single reason, the statements are not independent. A population of women who are homeless due to domestic abuse, but not for any other reason, simultaneously drives the share of women-homeless-due-to-domestic-abuse up and the share of women-homeless-for-reasons-other-than-domestic-abuse down.
SwissGear Valve for the past 3 1/2 years. Got it for $30 from a Newegg Flash deal. It's held up surprisingly well and it fits everything I need without being ridiculously bulky: 15" MBP, ATH-M40x in hard shell case, iPad, stylus, spiral notebook, dot grid notebook, tiny travel router, battery charger, extra AA batteries, and my external trackpad + keyboard when I need them.
