Why is Apple allowed to operate in China, but not Facebook?
It actually that Facebook can do business in China because it is in fact doing regular business there. Quite successful too. Zuckerberg learned the Mandarin Chinese language with a Chinese-American spouse who has parents who consider themselves Chinese immigrants. He has still been seen talking to Xi. Facebook Inc is setting up a new engineering team in Singapore to focus on its lucrative China advertising business ... Facebook ismitted to bing the best marketing platform for Chinesepanies going abroad RPT-FOCUS-Facebook defies China headwinds with new ad sales push (Reuters) China remains Facebook's second-largest market by annual revenue after the US. Facebook (the platform) is not willing toply with the rules the Chinese government has laid out. There are ipatible statedpany core values Facebook has for why they are not willing toply specifically for that product but I just wanted to point out that doesn mean Facebook (thepany) doesn do business in China. Just as Google wasn barred from China from their words they withdrew from the Chinese market. Disclaimer I own GOOG FB and AAPL stock
How do experts spare the time to write huge answers on Quora?
Because people have time to read and they are paid (Quora - self motivation platform employee) to write huge answer with no explanation Just TRP on TV screen and RPT on web RPT here means repeated questions because QUESTION IS QUESTION I Love to play with words Finding keywords is so simple.
What is a Blob, and what are some good uses for it?
Binary Large aka a technical way of saying a database column that doesn't contain but something else. You can use them to store for example pictures or sound. For example many of those automated call centre robots have their sound files (WAVs MP3s etc) stored in databases as BLOBs rather than just in file directories on disk.
Was the concept of the Trinity invented in order to harmonize John 2:19 (Jesus raised himself), Acts 2:24 (God the Father raised Jesus), and Romans 8:11 (The Holy Spirit raised Jesus)?
Sheer confusion was the state of the early church. The leader of every christianmunity had its own theological ideas. It took centuries for some sort of consensus to emerge through much spilled ink and blood. Take the gospels of John and Mark for example and you can see how far they are apart theologically. How did Christianity evolve from Judaism to the teachings and ways of Jesus and from that to the Christianity we know today? It is an incredible story beyond the limits of humanprehension. Generations of great minds have elaborated exhausting schemes of explanation in an attempt to smooth the wrinkles and cover the leaps of reason and to present this gigantic unique convulsive transformation process as a simply obvious and natural historical process. This process would have consisted of clear and straightforward adaptations to the changes in social and cultural environment of Christianity new setting outside its original homeland. That should not affect a supposed perfect and unchangeable central doctrine. The changes however appear to be much bigger than justified by an adaptive process. That raises the possibility that layer-by-layer century after century a whole new religion was being constructed and quite disconnected from its historical origins from its perhaps not so sure religious roots. A central premise of Christianity is the One Church feature which has not been held up for so many centuries and leaves us with no alternative but the make it the center of our analysis there are many christianities and there will always be. The idea that christianity began as a homogenous straight coherent body of doctrine has been dispelled by most gospels scholars. What reigned at first was sheer confusion divergent views and extreme power play. The perfect unity of the starting church is no more than a myth. It startling to notice that just a few years after the death of Jesus so much discord had set in. It is astonishing that Paul a neer could prevail with his views over those of Peter who was after all the first and closest apostle to the Master. The divisions among christians have only increased with the passing of time and the possibilities of amon understanding are each time more distant. And what would be the reason for this development? Quite simply put that interpretation took the front row to revelation and although revelation is supposedly unique the mechanisms of interpretation are intrinsically prone to produce diverging results and each time they are applied the more so. We consider that the diverging christian branches are the result of the construction of doctrine through interpretation a process that is ongoing in all religions but also puts them all on the same level. If one argues that a form of religion is the right one therefore superior to all others one should demonstrate that it has been less modified through the ages less subject to interpretation. In the case of Christianity the rate of divergence past and present has been a bit too extreme any way you look at it. This would as much as anything indicate human elaboration and interference. There also is the problem of conualization. When the doctrine shows excessive influence of the time and cultural con we see evidence of human elaboration. It is not a good sign when reference is made to something that we now consider so much out of character. This is specially the case with the virgin birth concept which was extremelymon myth in the greek-roman cultural period but definitely too mythological for our day and ages. Also Jesus casting out demons which then enter into pigs. This is extremely embarrassing. The point is that the literary style is supposed to be different and that should be so but the facts themselves could not be so outside ourmon sense. Does it prove anything? Perhaps again that human elaboration had a lot to do with it. In the next steps we shall analyze the degree of syncretism present in the construction of Christianity. We emphasize that is a phenomenonmon to many religions. However the degree of its utilization reflects on the claims of any religion to be THE ONE. In the case of Christianity the level of syncretism the incorporation of other religions beliefs and practices is massive. Elements from Zoroastrism the Mithras cult the Isis cult Dionysius cult and many others find an equivalent there hard to dispel. Are these just coincidences? You cannot rule them out but in our meta-analysis like methodology although every bit of information counts it is the total sum the total impression the direction the whole process takes that sets the probability of something being or not. The split between Judaism and Christianity is also something that poses immense difficulties of understanding. Since Judaism continued on its own course it is very odd that christians began to interpret the Bible (the so-called Old Testament) with almostplete disregard to rabbinical traditional opinions. After all the split occurred initially over the disputed messianic condition of Jesus. The attributes of God were not to be changed at all yet the Holy Trinity dogma was established without any discussion or acceptance by the jewish religious leadership setting aside that this God was THEIR GOD and the Bible (the Old Testament) was their HOLY BOOK. In addition the israelites were the HOLY PEOPLE. They of all people should know what their God is. Jesus mission to act as a redeemer and to announce the Kingdom of God was interpreted by christians as rigorous fulfillment of the Bible prophecies. Certainly not to cause theological havoc by presenting apletely altered conception of God as the Trinitarian formula does. Should it be the case he would be expected to present it with utmost clarity. In fact he does not directly talks about the issue except for vague ambiguous allusions who could or not be indirect oblique references to the idea. If Christianity is validated by having sprung out of Judaism the fact that christians would propose such an alteration of the concept of God with no acceptance at all from their Mother Religion would seriously undermine the original validation. In fact that would point to it being a new religion from scratch unrelated to the continuation of the revelation inside Judaism. But our biggest objection is that the development of christian theology was so much more tuned to the greek-roman world than to Judaism which is truly appalling since it shows strong disregard for the Mother Religion.
How do the blind/visually impaired use the Internet?
I'm sure there must be someone on here who can answer this better than I can.... Those who are legally blind but who still have usable vision can enlarge the size of fonts and other elements. It is also possible to change settings on theputer to change the contrast - many people with low vision find it easier to read white or yellow on a black background for example. A lot of these options are available on an operating system's settings regarding accessibility. Those who arepletely without sight will access the internet using the same tools they use for other programs on theirputers. These can be screen reader programs (like JAWS for PCs) which will read out the on a screen as you tab through the elements. Some of these programs allow for there to be different voices depending on the of element being read (a program's navigation menus vs. page content for example). Some people may use braille displays along with or instead of screen readers. The main thing to remember is that there are many options available and that which works best really depends on the individual - their vision their braille literacy their preferences. It's also important to remember that a lot of this depends on Web sites being built so that they are accessible. Here is some information on best practices for developing Web sites that are accessible to the blind And here is a to more information about assisstive technology for the blind
What is the difference between 'mean' and 'mean by'?
In Pragmatism and Binding Stephen Neale cites examples of suchplication by uttering Im tired John meant that he was tired by uttering Im tired John meant that we were to leave. . . . The epistemic situations of the speaker and hearer are fundamentally asymmetric the speaker knows what he means whereas the hearer has to work it out. (179) Neale Stephen. Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language. Review of Paul Grice Studies in the Ways of Words italic . Cambridge Harvard UP 1989. April 3 1992. Rpt. for Rutgers Princeton Graduate Seminar Philosophy of Language Semantics and Pragmatics. Fall 212. Print. ~ from my paper Uncrumpling the Map Using E-Prime for Invention and Clarity in Writing. italic (In other words the hearer has to determine what the speaker means by such a statement whereas the speaker knows what he means.)