If you want last years model, you're going to end up paying market value for it. In this case, market value of XP after point of sale on a computer is some amount of money. It's not a fee, it's a price.
If last years model is more in demand than this year's and their are associated costs with distributing and supporting it, then there will obviously be a price involved. Otherwise, Microsoft would not be a BUSINESS.
The product she bought had Vista preinstalled, thus she bought a license to use Vista. Since she did not pay for XP, so she must purchase XP in order to use it. If she wanted XP preinstalled in her computer, she should not have bought a computer with Vista preinstalled.
I would like to point out that this text could not have come from 400 BCE and contain the Gospel of Mark. Did the author intend to say 400 CE? I am curious about the errors made in this stub, as well as the reaction to it. This has helped me realize some of the shortcomings of the Slashdot perspective of the world.
No, there is a very direct correlation between CO2 and the earth's atmospheric temperature. This has been demonstrated by sampling glaciers in the arctic that have layers millions of years deep. The question that the scientific community is asking now is, "is there a connection between human activity and rising of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere," which, as a greenhouse gas, does trap in heat and will raise the temperature of earth's atmosphere.
And we may all be smart asses and point out that CO2 is a byproduct of our own respiration (and the respiration of pretty much every living organism on earth), but the amount of excess CO2 that has been released from the burning of fossil fuels, coal, and other sources of hydrocarbon power, far exceeds the natural cycle of respiration and reuptake of CO2 into plant sugars. A comfortable level of CO2 is the level at which the ecology of earth can rapidly reincorporate CO2 and produce O2 without the added pressure of the bruning of hydrocarbons.
Let's also remember that science is self-correcting in nature because bad theories will be falsified. So rather than just say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, how about someone offers an explanation of why it is not.
And here I thought people who read slashdot put some credibility in the generally accepted views of the scientific community. Why, then, are we so hostile towards a positive decision in curbing global climate change?
The subject of evolution is so stigmatized that it makes perfect sense to me why people would use the term sparingly. I go to the University of Texas, am in a Christian fraternity, and I am a staunch advocate of evolution, but even my friends who are bio majors that are Christians have trouble with evolution. Just mentioning the word is tiresome, and it comes up frequently in discussion. I guess my point is that evolution is a term that is broad and carries with it the implications a large amount of theory and thought, and in avoiding redundancy itis important to say words like "arise," "adapted," etc.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want last years model, you're going to end up paying market value for it. In this case, market value of XP after point of sale on a computer is some amount of money. It's not a fee, it's a price. If last years model is more in demand than this year's and their are associated costs with distributing and supporting it, then there will obviously be a price involved. Otherwise, Microsoft would not be a BUSINESS.
The product she bought had Vista preinstalled, thus she bought a license to use Vista. Since she did not pay for XP, so she must purchase XP in order to use it. If she wanted XP preinstalled in her computer, she should not have bought a computer with Vista preinstalled.
I would like to point out that this text could not have come from 400 BCE and contain the Gospel of Mark. Did the author intend to say 400 CE? I am curious about the errors made in this stub, as well as the reaction to it. This has helped me realize some of the shortcomings of the Slashdot perspective of the world.
I would hedge my bets on education. It's the only way to keep American productivity up in the 21st Century.
No, there is a very direct correlation between CO2 and the earth's atmospheric temperature. This has been demonstrated by sampling glaciers in the arctic that have layers millions of years deep. The question that the scientific community is asking now is, "is there a connection between human activity and rising of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere," which, as a greenhouse gas, does trap in heat and will raise the temperature of earth's atmosphere. And we may all be smart asses and point out that CO2 is a byproduct of our own respiration (and the respiration of pretty much every living organism on earth), but the amount of excess CO2 that has been released from the burning of fossil fuels, coal, and other sources of hydrocarbon power, far exceeds the natural cycle of respiration and reuptake of CO2 into plant sugars. A comfortable level of CO2 is the level at which the ecology of earth can rapidly reincorporate CO2 and produce O2 without the added pressure of the bruning of hydrocarbons. Let's also remember that science is self-correcting in nature because bad theories will be falsified. So rather than just say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, how about someone offers an explanation of why it is not.
And here I thought people who read slashdot put some credibility in the generally accepted views of the scientific community. Why, then, are we so hostile towards a positive decision in curbing global climate change?
The subject of evolution is so stigmatized that it makes perfect sense to me why people would use the term sparingly. I go to the University of Texas, am in a Christian fraternity, and I am a staunch advocate of evolution, but even my friends who are bio majors that are Christians have trouble with evolution. Just mentioning the word is tiresome, and it comes up frequently in discussion. I guess my point is that evolution is a term that is broad and carries with it the implications a large amount of theory and thought, and in avoiding redundancy itis important to say words like "arise," "adapted," etc.