Heh. The upgrade process for SP2 was awful, period. The upgrade itself wasn't the thrust of my comments, though, I was referring to system performance outside of updates ^_^
True, although it took a little longer with 1GB. I only used 512MB as an example since I believe that was minimum spec to receive Microsoft's stamp of approval. A patched Windows Vista should preferably not be used on anything with fewer than 2GB of RAM, imo.
IIRC, Vista machines didn't come with less than 512MB of RAM from OEMs. For the original RTM version, 512 was actually "okay"...as in, it ran acceptably.
However, I don't believe Microsoft ever updated their requirements for "Designed for Windows Vista". Perhaps the arrangements with the OEMs made changing their minds not feasible.
With only 512MB of RAM, Vista's updates quickly started dropping the system's performance below acceptable levels. Add in Service Packs 1 & 2, and you were sunk.
Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.
Splitting hairs. All laws are defined by what they are enforced to mean.
The "spirit" of the law, last I checked, is generally understood to be the intent of those who wrote/approved the law.
The Diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish teenager killed by the Nazis whose writing survived in the Amsterdam building where she had hidden, is causing problems.
By your own statement, anyone can potentially be racist. For example: would you agree that Barack Obama, current President of the United States of America, qualifies as both privileged and powerful? If you disagree with that, perhaps a clearer definition of what you consider "privilege" and "power" is in order.
Doubtful. Pretty sure Google updating their product and changing functionality (the ability to block ads isn't an advertised feature:P) doesn't violate any laws. Not only that, but:
A) You aren't forced to use their browser, at least, not by Google
B) You presumably agreed to Google's terms and conditions / EULA when you installed/used Chrome
C) The product is provided free of charge and you didn't pay Google a single cent for it.
Honestly, this was my first question while reading the summary (read the article? Bah!). It's possible that this person availed themselves of AshleyMadison sometime in the past and has since improved his relationship with his spouse; however, it sounds more like rationalization, as such improvement presumably precluded 'fessing up to his indiscretion.
Unfortunately(?), he relied on a third party to assist with the hook-up. Remember: Two people can keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why I only use organic pixels for my photos. None of those unnatural digital markers contaminating my files!
Wait...is that before or after throttling?
https://xkcd.com/341/
Heh. The upgrade process for SP2 was awful, period. The upgrade itself wasn't the thrust of my comments, though, I was referring to system performance outside of updates ^_^
Java Installer Flaw Shows Why You Should Not Install Java
FTFY.
True, although it took a little longer with 1GB. I only used 512MB as an example since I believe that was minimum spec to receive Microsoft's stamp of approval. A patched Windows Vista should preferably not be used on anything with fewer than 2GB of RAM, imo.
However, I don't believe Microsoft ever updated their requirements for "Designed for Windows Vista". Perhaps the arrangements with the OEMs made changing their minds not feasible.
With only 512MB of RAM, Vista's updates quickly started dropping the system's performance below acceptable levels. Add in Service Packs 1 & 2, and you were sunk.
Look no further!
Because the letter of the law is what it is, one has to expect that the letter is an accurate embodiment of the *actual* "spirit", as opposed to the "spirit" that everyone pays lip service to.
Splitting hairs. All laws are defined by what they are enforced to mean.
The "spirit" of the law, last I checked, is generally understood to be the intent of those who wrote/approved the law.
The Diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish teenager killed by the Nazis whose writing survived in the Amsterdam building where she had hidden, is causing problems.
Spoilers! T_T
I don't use them, anymore; I got tired of them using me.
Prince All-you-see Is-losses? Beautiful! XD
By your own statement, anyone can potentially be racist. For example: would you agree that Barack Obama, current President of the United States of America, qualifies as both privileged and powerful? If you disagree with that, perhaps a clearer definition of what you consider "privilege" and "power" is in order.
Of course, Racism ~= Discrimination
but that's another discussion.
I wonder if it actually made a profit , though. :S
*Naked* images would just be disrespectful in this case. At least get them sleeved or framed! Geez!
he was a widely respected University of Chicago faculty member writing in Slate.
FTFY.
She'll just love your "morning wood!"
They probably meant to say that they're not true apps. No true app could be a knock-off, malicious, useless, etc. </rofl>
No, no, you should be safe...you spelled "Pokémon" wrong :-D
If they don't agree with us, they must be wrong!
I think rational debate would be solely sufficient to shut down his campaign for cryptographic backdoors.
Unless, by "rational debate," he means everyone who disagrees shuts the hell up...
I'd rather send Microsoft my dick size than go to Apple.
Why would either be interested in something so insignificant?
Because, based on both companies behavior, size matters? ;-)
Doubtful. Pretty sure Google updating their product and changing functionality (the ability to block ads isn't an advertised feature :P) doesn't violate any laws. Not only that, but:
A) You aren't forced to use their browser, at least, not by Google
B) You presumably agreed to Google's terms and conditions / EULA when you installed/used Chrome
C) The product is provided free of charge and you didn't pay Google a single cent for it.
Slash-vertisement taken to a new low?
Happily married?
Honestly, this was my first question while reading the summary (read the article? Bah!). It's possible that this person availed themselves of AshleyMadison sometime in the past and has since improved his relationship with his spouse; however, it sounds more like rationalization, as such improvement presumably precluded 'fessing up to his indiscretion.
Unfortunately(?), he relied on a third party to assist with the hook-up. Remember: Two people can keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead.