To be pedantic, the 8-bit processor chips common when Microsoft was started generally had 16-bit address spaces, and so 64K was a hard limit (less than that in most cases due to memory-mapped I/O). It didn't matter if you were working in Microsoft BASIC or Fortran or what, that was a hard address-space limit. The Intel 8088/8086 architecture could address a megabyte in a clumsy way, but MS-DOS reserved much of that address space, leaving 640K for the user memory. At first, this was moot, since memory was expensive. Allegedly, one reason IBM went with the 8088 rather than the more powerful 8086 was that the 8088 could conveniently have 64K of memory, since it had an 8-bit memory bandwidth, while the 8086 would require double the number of 4164 chips.
Thing is, they aren't supposed to use this phrase in public. It's one thing to lie, it's another to tell people "I'm lying to you". Even so, it doesn't actually seem to have damaged Trump very much.
I disagree. I think it was very much intended to go public, to tell the pro-Trump people from the anti-Trump people. People who are pro-Trump obviously don't care about wholesale lying (this is specifically people who are pro-Trump, not everyone who voted for him). Trump ideology is a specifically irrational and anti-intellectual one, reminiscent of National Socialism in that regard among others.
You say this as if accounting rules had to make sense. Ideally, they would, but in practice businesses seem to live with the consequences. In the meantime, if you're a low-ranking manager who needs software, you work within the rules. If you have authority to pay $500/month on a subscription basis, whereas a capital expenditure of $10K will have to go to someone who will take an arbitrary amount of time to maybe authorize it, you're going to get the subscription.
Because I've seen no evidence that Google does that. Google sells targeted ads. If you have some actual reason to think Google sells information, please let us know.
The "left" has not brushed off complaints. The refugee vetting procedure the US follows is very rigorous and takes years. The Obama administration worked to reduce illegal immigration, which is why we have fewer illegals in the US than before.
Obama couldn't close Gitmo because Congress explicitly refused to allow him to use Federal funds in the process. Trump will find out that he isn't free to ignore the law or Congress. Want a wall? Congress has to appropriate the funds. Want higher tariffs? Congress has to pass them. The New York Times claimed that this executive order violates a law, and, if so, the courts will order the law to be obeyed.
Your view of who fractured the US on partisan lines is way different from mine. It started with Gingrich, and continued with Bush "for us or against us". The Republican Senate was so partisan that it refused to hold hearings on what was already a compromise choice for Supreme Court Justice.
You're talking about the Visa Waiver idea that people from certain countries can enter the US without needing a visa. We're talking about people with visas who were stopped at the border. To put this in simpler terms, you are talking about a law that says certain people can't come into the US without a visa. The current upset is about people who do have visas and are not being allowed in.
You have not pointed to any case in which the Obama administration violated the law and allowed a non-VWP person to enter without a visa.
There's also the fact that only countries whose citizens haven't committed a terrorist attack in the US for the past forty years or so are on the list. We do some pretty thorough screening of refugees, normally taking years, and it seems to be working with people of those countries.
So, it would appear that the number of terrorists mixed in with the flow of refugees from those countries is, in fact, zero. Our strict vetting procedures are working, and there is no reason to suddenly stop the ones we're sure aren't terrorists at the border.
Actually, negligent/unintentional mishandling of classified documents is not criminally prosecuted, even when it's clear what happened. The closest I could find was a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and wound up not having to do so. In some cases the people involved lost security clearances, and they could lose their jobs, and I'd expect it to be a career-limiting move in general.
Evidence supplied by private citizens is usually admissible, unless they were in some way working for law enforcement at the time. Parallel construction typically is when the law enforcement people do something illegal that would invalidate the evidence and lie about the source. It's an attempt to remove the one really effective measure to keep law enforcement obeying the law.
Actually, the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is a private organization, and is only one of a list of companies the US Government will accept for certification. As it got popular, people and businesses started demanding the UL label enough that it was easier for a manufacturer to just get UL approval than try to sell without it. So far, it doesn't seem to have become a rubber stamp for sufficient money, hasn't become much of a market barrier, and still retains its reputation. The UL is the libertarian's dream in the open market, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
Ever done an important computer presentation? The correct thing to do is to run through it completely beforehand, then lock everything down so nothing changes, since any change could make something fail at the worst possible time. The incorrect thing to do is to run it through completely, and do an inadequately described OS update, or to run that update when there isn't enough time or other resources to fix anything it borked.
Except that this doesn't have a solution based on enforcing existing laws, and I don't see a good one with passing new ones. Microsoft is doing nothing illegal. Microsoft is updating the system in the manner the EULA presumably says. This is a customer satisfaction matter, and an excellent demonstration why people should insist on second sources for everything they can.
Looking at the links you supply that seem to be from actual news sources (note that I didn't link the HuffPo article I found), we find snopes claiming that someone registered nineteen dead people, CBS4 talking about up to a dozen people who may have voted twice, and Fox mostly speculating. Multiple registrations aren't vote fraud, and some of Trump's nominees appear to have multiple registrations. For all I know, I'm still registered in some of my old residences, but I haven't checked.
I don't understand why people keep claiming that voter ID stops that kind of voter fraud. Multiple voting in significant numbers is easy to catch, and if the authorities are going to overlook that they're not likely to enforce ID. Do you have any actual evidence that it would help more than it hurts?
Also, Republicans run a lot of states, and it's in those that Democrats tend to have problems voting. Duh.
Read the Wikipedia article you cited.. It's very up front about global cooling being a minority view, almost a fringe view. Most climate scientists expected global warming. A few expected global cooling, and they got a lot of press.
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the Constitution. Trump cannot legally accept payments from any government other than his salary, since there are two emoluments clauses that apply. I'd expect his hotels to get payment from some government or other fairly frequently.
The New York Times ran an article about the law Trump was breaking. I don't remember the details. The judge that issued the stay presumably knows what law was broken.
Slashdot Mirror
To be pedantic, the 8-bit processor chips common when Microsoft was started generally had 16-bit address spaces, and so 64K was a hard limit (less than that in most cases due to memory-mapped I/O). It didn't matter if you were working in Microsoft BASIC or Fortran or what, that was a hard address-space limit. The Intel 8088/8086 architecture could address a megabyte in a clumsy way, but MS-DOS reserved much of that address space, leaving 640K for the user memory. At first, this was moot, since memory was expensive. Allegedly, one reason IBM went with the 8088 rather than the more powerful 8086 was that the 8088 could conveniently have 64K of memory, since it had an 8-bit memory bandwidth, while the 8086 would require double the number of 4164 chips.
On the other hand, I'm positive I saw Emacs referred to as Eight Megabytes And Callocing Still, which looks so quaint nowadays.
I disagree. I think it was very much intended to go public, to tell the pro-Trump people from the anti-Trump people. People who are pro-Trump obviously don't care about wholesale lying (this is specifically people who are pro-Trump, not everyone who voted for him). Trump ideology is a specifically irrational and anti-intellectual one, reminiscent of National Socialism in that regard among others.
Personally, I'm wondering what the Muslim Travel Ban is intended to distract everyone from.
Bu-but it works in Kerbal Space Program!
I'm sorry, but your alternative-facts blackjack is actually Go Fish, and I'm not going to talk about your alternative hookers.
You say this as if accounting rules had to make sense. Ideally, they would, but in practice businesses seem to live with the consequences. In the meantime, if you're a low-ranking manager who needs software, you work within the rules. If you have authority to pay $500/month on a subscription basis, whereas a capital expenditure of $10K will have to go to someone who will take an arbitrary amount of time to maybe authorize it, you're going to get the subscription.
Because I've seen no evidence that Google does that. Google sells targeted ads. If you have some actual reason to think Google sells information, please let us know.
The "left" has not brushed off complaints. The refugee vetting procedure the US follows is very rigorous and takes years. The Obama administration worked to reduce illegal immigration, which is why we have fewer illegals in the US than before.
Obama couldn't close Gitmo because Congress explicitly refused to allow him to use Federal funds in the process. Trump will find out that he isn't free to ignore the law or Congress. Want a wall? Congress has to appropriate the funds. Want higher tariffs? Congress has to pass them. The New York Times claimed that this executive order violates a law, and, if so, the courts will order the law to be obeyed.
Your view of who fractured the US on partisan lines is way different from mine. It started with Gingrich, and continued with Bush "for us or against us". The Republican Senate was so partisan that it refused to hold hearings on what was already a compromise choice for Supreme Court Justice.
You're talking about the Visa Waiver idea that people from certain countries can enter the US without needing a visa. We're talking about people with visas who were stopped at the border. To put this in simpler terms, you are talking about a law that says certain people can't come into the US without a visa. The current upset is about people who do have visas and are not being allowed in.
You have not pointed to any case in which the Obama administration violated the law and allowed a non-VWP person to enter without a visa.
Obama didn't determine that those countries were bad. The list was attached to an appropriations bill that Obama signed for other reasons.
There's also the fact that only countries whose citizens haven't committed a terrorist attack in the US for the past forty years or so are on the list. We do some pretty thorough screening of refugees, normally taking years, and it seems to be working with people of those countries.
So, it would appear that the number of terrorists mixed in with the flow of refugees from those countries is, in fact, zero. Our strict vetting procedures are working, and there is no reason to suddenly stop the ones we're sure aren't terrorists at the border.
Actually, negligent/unintentional mishandling of classified documents is not criminally prosecuted, even when it's clear what happened. The closest I could find was a guy who agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and wound up not having to do so. In some cases the people involved lost security clearances, and they could lose their jobs, and I'd expect it to be a career-limiting move in general.
Evidence supplied by private citizens is usually admissible, unless they were in some way working for law enforcement at the time. Parallel construction typically is when the law enforcement people do something illegal that would invalidate the evidence and lie about the source. It's an attempt to remove the one really effective measure to keep law enforcement obeying the law.
Do any of your friends and family have Facebook accounts? There may be a significant amount of information about you on Facebook anyway.
Actually, the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is a private organization, and is only one of a list of companies the US Government will accept for certification. As it got popular, people and businesses started demanding the UL label enough that it was easier for a manufacturer to just get UL approval than try to sell without it. So far, it doesn't seem to have become a rubber stamp for sufficient money, hasn't become much of a market barrier, and still retains its reputation. The UL is the libertarian's dream in the open market, but it appears to be the exception rather than the rule.
Ever done an important computer presentation? The correct thing to do is to run through it completely beforehand, then lock everything down so nothing changes, since any change could make something fail at the worst possible time. The incorrect thing to do is to run it through completely, and do an inadequately described OS update, or to run that update when there isn't enough time or other resources to fix anything it borked.
Excuse me, but your grammar is improper for Bizarro World ,where you are apparently posting from.
That doesn't seem to describe last week's reboot I got, though.
Except that this doesn't have a solution based on enforcing existing laws, and I don't see a good one with passing new ones. Microsoft is doing nothing illegal. Microsoft is updating the system in the manner the EULA presumably says. This is a customer satisfaction matter, and an excellent demonstration why people should insist on second sources for everything they can.
Okay, try this one.
Looking at the links you supply that seem to be from actual news sources (note that I didn't link the HuffPo article I found), we find snopes claiming that someone registered nineteen dead people, CBS4 talking about up to a dozen people who may have voted twice, and Fox mostly speculating. Multiple registrations aren't vote fraud, and some of Trump's nominees appear to have multiple registrations. For all I know, I'm still registered in some of my old residences, but I haven't checked.
I don't understand why people keep claiming that voter ID stops that kind of voter fraud. Multiple voting in significant numbers is easy to catch, and if the authorities are going to overlook that they're not likely to enforce ID. Do you have any actual evidence that it would help more than it hurts?
Also, Republicans run a lot of states, and it's in those that Democrats tend to have problems voting. Duh.
Read the Wikipedia article you cited.. It's very up front about global cooling being a minority view, almost a fringe view. Most climate scientists expected global warming. A few expected global cooling, and they got a lot of press.
Read the Constitution. Trump cannot legally accept payments from any government other than his salary, since there are two emoluments clauses that apply. I'd expect his hotels to get payment from some government or other fairly frequently.
The New York Times ran an article about the law Trump was breaking. I don't remember the details. The judge that issued the stay presumably knows what law was broken.
I haven't seen a phone or tablet update notice that didn't allow me to say "Not now", but this appears to not be the case for Windows 10.