If this works it may be a death knell for AMD. They have no presence in the high-end now, so if ARM gobbles up the low-end then they lose their major market. We might not have AMD processors in 5 years.
Visited a recycling center over the summer as part of my job, while I was there they found that someone had dropped off one of the red rolling toolchests. Worth about a grand. Nothing wrong with it except it smelled. They rolled it into their shop to use for themselves.
Less necessary to anyone who uses search. Which is objectively faster in most cases. Tap the Windows key, type the first two letters of what you want and it'll probably be at the top of the list. You can have the program open before you'd even get the "All Programs" list open most of the time.
IF you maintained it. If you didn't it was neither. It would rapidly become a sprawling, unruly pile of crap that could take several minutes to find what you were looking for. Hopefully you remember the publisher of the software you're looking for, because there's a good chance that's the sub-folder it's under.
It's less "Hah, you fuckers don't deserve a start menu because we elite assholes don't think you should have one" and more "Wait, what? People are still using that? WTF? Well...I guess they can learn to use search right? What do you mean they're refusing to use search?"
It's that we feel it is not the federal governments role.
With the end result that a lot of people can't afford quality healthcare. LOTS of people actually don't pay much of anything in taxes once all their refunds are accounted for, but still don't make enough money to afford getting sick.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases. That's my understanding of why it was removed, MS engineers haven't used it themselves since Vista.
You'd probably need to own a car either way, unless you live in a location where getting to your job is practical without one, which is not easy for most people.
Do you have numbers on the total dead in Europe from cars? Tossing around big numbers doesn't mean much when we're the 3rd most populous country in the world.
Neither the B-1 or the B-2 are in production. We got far fewer of the B-2s than we wanted due to the end of the Cold War. Our B-52s are crumbling and the B-1s paid dearly for abilities that are no longer relevant. The B-1 actually gets a LOT of use, we just don't hear about it as much as the B-52 for some reason. Both of them likely cost more in maintenance and per flight hour than we'd like to pay, though the question of whether or not the LRS-B will be cheaper to operate is an open one.
Not really. Very low wavelength radar can "defeat" stealth, but can't be used to guide missiles, chances are good the new plane will have some new trick to help with that as well.
Are you being serious? The Osprey and the Apache are entirely different, the Osprey is a people-hauler and the Apache is a gunship, so cancelling the Osprey gets nothing really. Cruise missiles can't replace bombers for any serious conflict since they cost a million or so per shot, while a bomber can carry hundreds of smart bombs that can be targeted on the fly and cost only a few tens of thousands a piece.
Slashdot Mirror
B-b-but Reagan said it would trickle down!
Yeah, long-term this is gonna be required. As automation takes over more and more jobs eventually it'll be nearly impossible to keep employment up.
>More property crime
Why? If people don't need to steal to get money why would they risk going to jail? Do you think that theft is just random?
They won't be able to figure out how to make it work, so your data will be safe.
If this works it may be a death knell for AMD. They have no presence in the high-end now, so if ARM gobbles up the low-end then they lose their major market. We might not have AMD processors in 5 years.
Visited a recycling center over the summer as part of my job, while I was there they found that someone had dropped off one of the red rolling toolchests. Worth about a grand. Nothing wrong with it except it smelled. They rolled it into their shop to use for themselves.
Less necessary to anyone who uses search. Which is objectively faster in most cases. Tap the Windows key, type the first two letters of what you want and it'll probably be at the top of the list. You can have the program open before you'd even get the "All Programs" list open most of the time.
Reduced functionality for a deprecated, less necessary component. Not nearly as big of a deal as was made of it.
>Small
>Concise
IF you maintained it. If you didn't it was neither. It would rapidly become a sprawling, unruly pile of crap that could take several minutes to find what you were looking for. Hopefully you remember the publisher of the software you're looking for, because there's a good chance that's the sub-folder it's under.
And you can still browse, albeit in a less appealing format.
It's less "Hah, you fuckers don't deserve a start menu because we elite assholes don't think you should have one" and more "Wait, what? People are still using that? WTF? Well...I guess they can learn to use search right? What do you mean they're refusing to use search?"
Well if we just deregulate everything the Invisible Hand will make everything you could ever want cost pennies!
It's that we feel it is not the federal governments role.
With the end result that a lot of people can't afford quality healthcare. LOTS of people actually don't pay much of anything in taxes once all their refunds are accounted for, but still don't make enough money to afford getting sick.
That's why you search for "hand". Most likely "ha" will have your desired response at the top.
No start menu because it's not needed. Search is faster than poking through the start menu in most cases. That's my understanding of why it was removed, MS engineers haven't used it themselves since Vista.
I would join that party.
Libertarians don't want people taken care of though. No healthcare, no secondary education or things like that.
There's over 2 million refugees overall. That would gain them roughly 3%.
You'd probably need to own a car either way, unless you live in a location where getting to your job is practical without one, which is not easy for most people.
Do you have numbers on the total dead in Europe from cars? Tossing around big numbers doesn't mean much when we're the 3rd most populous country in the world.
Thankfully I don't NEED to convince you.
Neither the B-1 or the B-2 are in production. We got far fewer of the B-2s than we wanted due to the end of the Cold War. Our B-52s are crumbling and the B-1s paid dearly for abilities that are no longer relevant. The B-1 actually gets a LOT of use, we just don't hear about it as much as the B-52 for some reason. Both of them likely cost more in maintenance and per flight hour than we'd like to pay, though the question of whether or not the LRS-B will be cheaper to operate is an open one.
They're, uh, kinda doing that. The Russians and Chinese both have stealth planes in the works.
Not really. Very low wavelength radar can "defeat" stealth, but can't be used to guide missiles, chances are good the new plane will have some new trick to help with that as well.
Are you being serious? The Osprey and the Apache are entirely different, the Osprey is a people-hauler and the Apache is a gunship, so cancelling the Osprey gets nothing really. Cruise missiles can't replace bombers for any serious conflict since they cost a million or so per shot, while a bomber can carry hundreds of smart bombs that can be targeted on the fly and cost only a few tens of thousands a piece.