Yes, just random mistakes is why 10,000 "accidents" happen to the same exact gene exactly the same way in exactly the same spot every time, 100% of the time, in every cell their bodies, for multiple individuals. Random transcription error. Yes, you sure thought that one through. How embarrassing. No, but seriously, too bad you weren't on the peer review for the paper. You could have saved them from publishing such garbage!
He's seeking refugee status after fleeing from execution. Whether he was going to be executed for wanting freedom of speech, open elections, or for practicing an unapproved religion, I couldn't tell you.
Along those same lines, the disconnected crosswalk buttons aren't there for the placebo effect, they're there because disconnecting them was cheaper than pulling them all out. On the other hand, I swear my office thermostat doesn't do shit. It's always hot in here in the winter and I've even tried turning it down to 10 c. and the heater doesn't seem to care one bit what I have to say;)
A picture would convey absolutely and categorically no useful information whatsoever. Pictures of the fucking natives have nothing to do with what happened. That's absurd. Journals are for other scientists, and their interest is in the research, not in pretty pictures. Journals don't give one tenth of a fuck that some layman with no knowledge of the field finds their scientific papers TL;DR and wants some color plates of something basically unrelated to the subject matter.
Not only did your focus fade before you read the end of the summary, but your focus again faded before you reached the end of PsudonymousBraveguy's second sentence;) It didn't impact their ability to learn. It impacted their ability to learn only while the current was applied! And if you read the actual publication, not the BBC blurb, you'll see it didn't even "technically" affect their ability to learn. It impaired their ability to take arbitrary rules, and form a cohesive vision of the whole. (That is, they're given some relations between alien digits, that behind the scenes are just a new character set for our own digits, and had to solve puzzles with numbers written in the new script, without knowing what all of the numbers fully mean). Those with the right stimulation were able to form this cohesive vision much more easily. Those with the wrong stimulation had great difficulty forming this vision. Without being able to form the proper understand, they obviously have no way at all to REMEMBER the correct vision. You cannot remember something you never knew. So, it impaired their ability to learn only in that, WHILE THE CURRENT WAS ON AND ONLY THEN it impaired their ability to think abstractly and mathematically, and without the ability to understand the question, they had no way to learn about it.
TFP specifically says it had absolutely no effect on learning whatsoever. Never rely on what the summary says, it's typically written by somebody who didn't RTFA;)
In addition, TDCS did not affect the learning process itself, which might be subserved by nonparietal areas [37,38], or the automaticity of number processing and the mapping of number into space with everyday digits.
Though, perhaps that's semantics. They were given 10 symbols and shown some relationships between them, and left to solve math problems using these symbols instead of digits. The stimulation specifically did not let them remember the individual relationships any better, they didn't "learn" that better. What it did was allow them to more fully comprehend those relationships, as a whole. And, that comprehension was remembered and retained, although they likely didn't remember all of those relationships from before. So, they learned faster in the sense that they understood it better at the time, and retained that understanding. But they didn't learn any specific facts any faster. The group with the reverse stimulation, on the other hand, likewise had no more difficulty remembering all of the rules they were given about these 10 symbols. But, they had very little ability to put those rules together and form a greater understanding of what the symbols represent. So likely there was no long term ill effect. It's just, as you say, since they never had a grasp of the meaning before, they would have no way to learn that meaning and remember it;)
That is, the stimulation did indeed boost their intellect, at least a narrow subset thereof, the subset involved in taking these seemingly arbitrary rules, and forming them into a whole. When they had this greater understanding, it stuck with them. But it didn't make them better able to learn directly. Having that understanding allowed them to remember that understanding, but the stimulation didn't directly aid any sort of memorization.
Really? More, meaning you think that at least 50% of people, when saying something about "breaking up" with their girlfriend just mean they're going to their home towns for Christmas, not that they have stopped dating? That's absurd. To say that even 5% of people use the term "breakup" to mean something other than a relationship ending is probably far too high. I have never heard anybody talking about a holiday as a "breakup" with their school year. Nobody talks like that. A human should know that sort of thing...Oh snaps, If you really are a human, that is!
B5 had artificial gravity. Only the humans out of all the races didn't have it, because the other races didn't share their technology. Well, other than the jumpgates, which, as I recall, they had to buy at great cost. (Similar to how humans bought hyperdrive tech from traders in the Man-Kzin wars).
1. Unobtainium. I realize Tylium was a holdover from the original 70's BSG. But they displayed it having a range of properties that completely exclude it from being any real life element or compound. It would have been trivial to give Tylium the properties of either Deuterium or Helium-3, and simply work from the assumption that the protagonists have different words than us for the elements. Hell, "frak" already established that the writers were ready to sub in one word for another.
The BGS team really should have contacted you, as you apparently have knowledge of every single molecule that not only does exist, but also all molecules and compounds that could ever exist! Why have you not used your knowledge to cure cancer? Surely with your omniscient ability to identify all forms of matter possible, you know which ones can be used to treat all kinds of diseases! But anyway, if they had all their ships run on fusion reactors you'd complain about how unrealistic it is to have a tiny little viper boasting a fusion reactor that burns through a huge portion of an entire tank of Deuterium in a single instant.
4. Living ships. Seriously, this one's been done by every major soft science fiction series in the last 15 years, and has got to stop. Living tissue has no place in spacecraft design, except the warm meatbags who fly the damn things (and possibly as part of their life support).
BSG didn't have any living ships. They had the raiders that were metal ships with an organic brain. The reason they were done this way, rather than flown by a centurion or a built-in AI, is that the Cylons didn't really understand their Resurrection technology. With their Resurrection technology, as long as a Meat Cylon died within range, it could be reborn with no memory loss. Clearly they couldn't adapt that to Centurion Electronic AI technology, because as established in the plot, they didn't really understand the Resurrection tech. Resurrection let the ships learn from their mistakes. Of course, the Law of Narrative means that although they should be greatly superior to human pilots, they still ended up as cannon fodder.
The base-stars were also not living ships. They were metallic ships that had a paste that repaired damage. It was never really explicit if the paste was bacteria (that apparently would fill you with uncontrollable rage) or nanobots (That give you a massive erection). Sharon certainly called it alive, but called the Centurions alive also, so that doesn't mean it's organic life.
Lots of these loses are caused by military engagement, not suicide bomber. And, convoys are targets of opportunity. You can't decide "oh hey lets hit the scheduled convoy next week" because the schedule is randomized. And you can't say "lets ambush it here" because the route is, too. So if there are half as many of them, sure, it won't be a full half as many attacks, but it will be a lot less. Because with less out there, less will happen to pass close to enemy forces, and thus the enemy will be presented with less targets of opportunity. In other words, though it may shock you to your very core, sometimes occasionally people think about things at least as hard as dedicated Slashbots. Anyways, your work here is done, I'm sure there's another article coming up soon where you can point out the obvious mistakes that anybody with STREET SMARTS (tm) would catch, but all those elitists from Massachusetts clearly are too far up their own ass to ever consider.
It's not at all the same. In a no-bid contract, they just award the contract to Microsoft. Here they had a bid! It's just that one of the requirements is that the bidder be Microsoft! TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
The Mazda RX series has always used a rotary engine, that's what the R stands for;) Anyway, they're not claiming to have discovered opposing pistons. At any rate, the reason 2 stroke OP engines didn't catch on for cars is that they are polluting due to running on total-loss lubrication. Cars running on it had serious oil starvation problems when decelerating slowly. These guys are using a much different design. It's not just opposing pistons, they have two opposed cylinders as well, using one crankshaft instead of two. They also have an electric turbocharger so much better control over the fuel pressure (plus full fuel pressure from a cold start. This is not NEW new but is new compared to, say, the designs you'll find in books older than I am, as the OP said), and asymmetrical electronic intake and exhaust ports. They make the claim that this is eliminating the emission problem of the old designs. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But, it's not like they just took a 100 year old opposing piston engine and called it a day. It's using many modern components. And their claim to fame is that not only does this make it more efficient, but it (largely) uses the same parts as a traditional engine design, but less of them, so if anything it should be easier to maintain. Time will tell.
The other neat thing is that they can be daisy-chained along the central crankshaft, so you could have 4, 6, 8 cylinders, and only engage the cylinder pairs when you need that power. So, your sedan could tool around the city most of the time on 2 cylinders (4 pistons) and only turn the other two on for highway driving where you need more power. And your work truck, rather than having a bigger engine, would just have 8 cylinders instead of 2 or 4. So rather than needing different parts than your car, it would just need twice as many of the exact same parts.
Still, an appeal to tradition is a fallacy;) "We've always done it this way, that MUST mean that other ways aren't as good" is only true if nothing has changed in the meanwhile. This is built with modern parts and new technologies.
Just because your unreasonable expectations have thus far been met by Herculean backwards compatibility efforts doesn't make them reasonable. If you use new API calls, it won't work on old systems. Thus, nobody ever uses new features, and everything stagnates. In another article, somebody posted that they won't upgrade to Windows Vista/7/8 because they no longer correctly run Windows 3.1 software. Insanity.
How does that even make sense though? Lets go with somebody in Greenwich. They set their alarm for 5AM. But they're on British Summer Time so that's 4AM GMT. The alarm is set for 4 AM GMT then. DST ends and Greenwich goes back to GMT. Now the alarm, still set for 4 AM GMT, goes off an hour early.
I can't imagine what's going on that it's breaking in the other direction. Alarm is set for 5AM, which is 4AM GMT. The only 6AM comes out of either of those times is if you accidentally added instead of subtracted. But the alarm program shouldn't handle DST at all. It should either go off at 5AM because the alarm is saved as a UTC time, and a timezone it was set for. Or it should go off at 4AM because the alarm is saved as UTC period, with no TZ data. Going off at 6AM makes it seem like it's stored as UTC+TZ, but the programmer didn't realize that the system time is updated for DST automatically, so they added 1 hr on PURPOSE so the alarm doesn't go off early...but that's only a guess. Pretty stupid mistake, if that's what happened.
Anyway, anything but Windows stores time internally as UTC. Linux uses UTC (unless you tell it to play nice with your Windows partition). It solves the problem by having a timezone system setting. On a phone that's updated automatically by the cell towers the phone connects to. It's not a problem. And, I can't answer for an iPhone, but an Android works fine. If I set my alarm for 5AM in Toronto to catch a flight, it will go off at 5AM PST in Vancouver. Unless I kept it in airplane mode so it doesn't know it's flown to the west coast;) Whether that's because Android alarms are stored just as local time, or because they are stored as UTC+TZ, I have no idea.
Oh, but the airport hotel example is why people would be using their cell as an alarm. At home I have a clock radio on the bedside table. When traveling I used to have a digital watch, now I have a cellphone. It doesn't die overnight because it comes with this cable called a charger cable. You plug one end into a wall socket, and the other into the phone. Then it both charges the battery, and uses wall power to run. Amazing. Also, the "LOCKED" screen has a clock on it so the steps are "Push Button, Read Time" I admit it's one extra step from reading a clock radio, but there's no need to unlock, and no more need to put on your reading glasses than there is if you want to read your clock radio. Because while the "unlocked" time is a small print on the task bar up top, the clock when the phone is locked is quite large. I COULD try to set their alarm clock, if the hotel provides one, but I'd rather trust my phone. I used to trust my DS before that;) Before that I trusted my digital watch. My dad uses a travel alarm clock that you wind up. I guess not trusting the wake-up call service is genetic.
I get the feeling that if the only reason you know about product X is because every single time you click "next page" on some shithole newspaper that splits their article into 30 pages, you have to watch a video advertisement for X and then answer a pop quiz, you'll have some sort of Pavlovian rage response, rather than "Oh hey I've heard of X before, better buy that!"
Authors don't always share all the views of every single one of their characters. It's quite inappropriate to attribute a quote to the author when it's spoken by a character. That's taking things out of context.
Because Bell charges usage fees of $1/GB to their own customers, so if they can't charge at LEAST $1.12/GB to third parties then how can they possibly compete with third parties? I mean, besides slashing their lines like they do now.
It should be noted that Bell only charges $1.00 per GB to their own customers. So, somehow Bell is being given government force to be allowed to charge the customers of a third party MORE for using only their copper lines, than they charge their own customers for using their copper lines, their modems, and their internet backbone.
Bell already HAD usage base fees. This isn't about what Bell is allowed to do to their own customers. This is about what Bell is allowed to do to people who are NOT their customers. Bell is now allowed to demand bandwidth usage from third parties that use their lines, and tax those third parties. That is, TekSavvy connects their modem to a Bell copper line, and then wires that modem to their backbone. And Bell gets to hold a gun to your head and say you cannot download more GB than WE allow our customers or else it's not fair to us! Please at least read the summary.
The committee doesn't have the authority to set the budget. Their job is to audit the security programs and review the budget. They cannot set the budget. So, complaining about the direction it's going is 100% what her job is to do. Your complaint about the director not knowing what's in all 50,000 of those reports BEFORE HE WAS FUCKING CONFIRMED is even more laughable.
Seems fairly clear, my ass. It's gone up 3 fold since 9/11. This is a true fact. If truth has become partisan then all is lost. Would saying "Since 9/11" be less partisan for your liking? Or is that worse since 9/11 is a registered trademark of Rudy Guiliani? Maybe "lately?" is that non-partisan enough? At any rate, as a committee it's bipartisan, currently with 8 Dems and 7 Repubs. Can't anybody say ANYTHING AT ALL without everybody screaming "A democratic woman, lets not listen!"
At any rate, the Committee's job isn't to set the budget, it's job is to review and audit the various intel programs. It also reviews the budget, but is not in charge of approving it. Though it does draft the appropriate legislation to authorize funding for those 1,200 different intel agencies, it doesn't have the authority to say no. They have asked for a subcommittee with that authority, but the Senate Appropriations Committee is fighting them on that one.
If a prepackaged, working solution currently existed to virtualize IE6 and solve all these problems with just the receipt of a licensing fee, this would not be a story.
It is, XP mode is built into Windows 7 Ultimate/Business. You just have to install it. It's free, no licensing fee at all. Just install it, set apps to run in XP mode, and it's handed by a virtual machine in the background, and you get the window just like any other application, right on your desktop. All you need is Windows 7 Business, which I'm sure is what businesses have if they are big enough to have legacy web apps. And a CPU that supports HW virtualization, which any new one will. While IE6, in theory, could prevent you from upgrading to Windows 7 on an existing machine, if it's CPU is too old, it's no reason to avoid it on new machines. They can run IE6 just as well as XP does.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even 8PM UTC on Nov 9th yet, how can it match 5 PM fucking yesterday? Good math there champ.
Yes, just random mistakes is why 10,000 "accidents" happen to the same exact gene exactly the same way in exactly the same spot every time, 100% of the time, in every cell their bodies, for multiple individuals. Random transcription error. Yes, you sure thought that one through. How embarrassing. No, but seriously, too bad you weren't on the peer review for the paper. You could have saved them from publishing such garbage!
He's seeking refugee status after fleeing from execution. Whether he was going to be executed for wanting freedom of speech, open elections, or for practicing an unapproved religion, I couldn't tell you.
Along those same lines, the disconnected crosswalk buttons aren't there for the placebo effect, they're there because disconnecting them was cheaper than pulling them all out. On the other hand, I swear my office thermostat doesn't do shit. It's always hot in here in the winter and I've even tried turning it down to 10 c. and the heater doesn't seem to care one bit what I have to say ;)
Uploading naked pictures of yourself to an email server doesn't count as not doing anything interesting that's worth protecting ;)
A picture would convey absolutely and categorically no useful information whatsoever. Pictures of the fucking natives have nothing to do with what happened. That's absurd. Journals are for other scientists, and their interest is in the research, not in pretty pictures. Journals don't give one tenth of a fuck that some layman with no knowledge of the field finds their scientific papers TL;DR and wants some color plates of something basically unrelated to the subject matter.
Not only did your focus fade before you read the end of the summary, but your focus again faded before you reached the end of PsudonymousBraveguy's second sentence ;) It didn't impact their ability to learn. It impacted their ability to learn only while the current was applied! And if you read the actual publication, not the BBC blurb, you'll see it didn't even "technically" affect their ability to learn. It impaired their ability to take arbitrary rules, and form a cohesive vision of the whole. (That is, they're given some relations between alien digits, that behind the scenes are just a new character set for our own digits, and had to solve puzzles with numbers written in the new script, without knowing what all of the numbers fully mean). Those with the right stimulation were able to form this cohesive vision much more easily. Those with the wrong stimulation had great difficulty forming this vision. Without being able to form the proper understand, they obviously have no way at all to REMEMBER the correct vision. You cannot remember something you never knew. So, it impaired their ability to learn only in that, WHILE THE CURRENT WAS ON AND ONLY THEN it impaired their ability to think abstractly and mathematically, and without the ability to understand the question, they had no way to learn about it.
Though, perhaps that's semantics. They were given 10 symbols and shown some relationships between them, and left to solve math problems using these symbols instead of digits. The stimulation specifically did not let them remember the individual relationships any better, they didn't "learn" that better. What it did was allow them to more fully comprehend those relationships, as a whole. And, that comprehension was remembered and retained, although they likely didn't remember all of those relationships from before. So, they learned faster in the sense that they understood it better at the time, and retained that understanding. But they didn't learn any specific facts any faster. The group with the reverse stimulation, on the other hand, likewise had no more difficulty remembering all of the rules they were given about these 10 symbols. But, they had very little ability to put those rules together and form a greater understanding of what the symbols represent. So likely there was no long term ill effect. It's just, as you say, since they never had a grasp of the meaning before, they would have no way to learn that meaning and remember it ;)
That is, the stimulation did indeed boost their intellect, at least a narrow subset thereof, the subset involved in taking these seemingly arbitrary rules, and forming them into a whole. When they had this greater understanding, it stuck with them. But it didn't make them better able to learn directly. Having that understanding allowed them to remember that understanding, but the stimulation didn't directly aid any sort of memorization.
Really? More, meaning you think that at least 50% of people, when saying something about "breaking up" with their girlfriend just mean they're going to their home towns for Christmas, not that they have stopped dating? That's absurd. To say that even 5% of people use the term "breakup" to mean something other than a relationship ending is probably far too high. I have never heard anybody talking about a holiday as a "breakup" with their school year. Nobody talks like that. A human should know that sort of thing...Oh snaps, If you really are a human, that is!
B5 had artificial gravity. Only the humans out of all the races didn't have it, because the other races didn't share their technology. Well, other than the jumpgates, which, as I recall, they had to buy at great cost. (Similar to how humans bought hyperdrive tech from traders in the Man-Kzin wars).
The BGS team really should have contacted you, as you apparently have knowledge of every single molecule that not only does exist, but also all molecules and compounds that could ever exist! Why have you not used your knowledge to cure cancer? Surely with your omniscient ability to identify all forms of matter possible, you know which ones can be used to treat all kinds of diseases! But anyway, if they had all their ships run on fusion reactors you'd complain about how unrealistic it is to have a tiny little viper boasting a fusion reactor that burns through a huge portion of an entire tank of Deuterium in a single instant.
BSG didn't have any living ships. They had the raiders that were metal ships with an organic brain. The reason they were done this way, rather than flown by a centurion or a built-in AI, is that the Cylons didn't really understand their Resurrection technology. With their Resurrection technology, as long as a Meat Cylon died within range, it could be reborn with no memory loss. Clearly they couldn't adapt that to Centurion Electronic AI technology, because as established in the plot, they didn't really understand the Resurrection tech. Resurrection let the ships learn from their mistakes. Of course, the Law of Narrative means that although they should be greatly superior to human pilots, they still ended up as cannon fodder.
The base-stars were also not living ships. They were metallic ships that had a paste that repaired damage. It was never really explicit if the paste was bacteria (that apparently would fill you with uncontrollable rage) or nanobots (That give you a massive erection). Sharon certainly called it alive, but called the Centurions alive also, so that doesn't mean it's organic life.
Lots of these loses are caused by military engagement, not suicide bomber. And, convoys are targets of opportunity. You can't decide "oh hey lets hit the scheduled convoy next week" because the schedule is randomized. And you can't say "lets ambush it here" because the route is, too. So if there are half as many of them, sure, it won't be a full half as many attacks, but it will be a lot less. Because with less out there, less will happen to pass close to enemy forces, and thus the enemy will be presented with less targets of opportunity. In other words, though it may shock you to your very core, sometimes occasionally people think about things at least as hard as dedicated Slashbots. Anyways, your work here is done, I'm sure there's another article coming up soon where you can point out the obvious mistakes that anybody with STREET SMARTS (tm) would catch, but all those elitists from Massachusetts clearly are too far up their own ass to ever consider.
It's not at all the same. In a no-bid contract, they just award the contract to Microsoft. Here they had a bid! It's just that one of the requirements is that the bidder be Microsoft! TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
The Mazda RX series has always used a rotary engine, that's what the R stands for ;) Anyway, they're not claiming to have discovered opposing pistons. At any rate, the reason 2 stroke OP engines didn't catch on for cars is that they are polluting due to running on total-loss lubrication. Cars running on it had serious oil starvation problems when decelerating slowly. These guys are using a much different design. It's not just opposing pistons, they have two opposed cylinders as well, using one crankshaft instead of two. They also have an electric turbocharger so much better control over the fuel pressure (plus full fuel pressure from a cold start. This is not NEW new but is new compared to, say, the designs you'll find in books older than I am, as the OP said), and asymmetrical electronic intake and exhaust ports. They make the claim that this is eliminating the emission problem of the old designs. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. But, it's not like they just took a 100 year old opposing piston engine and called it a day. It's using many modern components. And their claim to fame is that not only does this make it more efficient, but it (largely) uses the same parts as a traditional engine design, but less of them, so if anything it should be easier to maintain. Time will tell.
The other neat thing is that they can be daisy-chained along the central crankshaft, so you could have 4, 6, 8 cylinders, and only engage the cylinder pairs when you need that power. So, your sedan could tool around the city most of the time on 2 cylinders (4 pistons) and only turn the other two on for highway driving where you need more power. And your work truck, rather than having a bigger engine, would just have 8 cylinders instead of 2 or 4. So rather than needing different parts than your car, it would just need twice as many of the exact same parts.
Still, an appeal to tradition is a fallacy ;) "We've always done it this way, that MUST mean that other ways aren't as good" is only true if nothing has changed in the meanwhile. This is built with modern parts and new technologies.
Just because your unreasonable expectations have thus far been met by Herculean backwards compatibility efforts doesn't make them reasonable. If you use new API calls, it won't work on old systems. Thus, nobody ever uses new features, and everything stagnates. In another article, somebody posted that they won't upgrade to Windows Vista/7/8 because they no longer correctly run Windows 3.1 software. Insanity.
How does that even make sense though? Lets go with somebody in Greenwich. They set their alarm for 5AM. But they're on British Summer Time so that's 4AM GMT. The alarm is set for 4 AM GMT then. DST ends and Greenwich goes back to GMT. Now the alarm, still set for 4 AM GMT, goes off an hour early. I can't imagine what's going on that it's breaking in the other direction. Alarm is set for 5AM, which is 4AM GMT. The only 6AM comes out of either of those times is if you accidentally added instead of subtracted. But the alarm program shouldn't handle DST at all. It should either go off at 5AM because the alarm is saved as a UTC time, and a timezone it was set for. Or it should go off at 4AM because the alarm is saved as UTC period, with no TZ data. Going off at 6AM makes it seem like it's stored as UTC+TZ, but the programmer didn't realize that the system time is updated for DST automatically, so they added 1 hr on PURPOSE so the alarm doesn't go off early...but that's only a guess. Pretty stupid mistake, if that's what happened.
Anyway, anything but Windows stores time internally as UTC. Linux uses UTC (unless you tell it to play nice with your Windows partition). It solves the problem by having a timezone system setting. On a phone that's updated automatically by the cell towers the phone connects to. It's not a problem. And, I can't answer for an iPhone, but an Android works fine. If I set my alarm for 5AM in Toronto to catch a flight, it will go off at 5AM PST in Vancouver. Unless I kept it in airplane mode so it doesn't know it's flown to the west coast ;) Whether that's because Android alarms are stored just as local time, or because they are stored as UTC+TZ, I have no idea.
Oh, but the airport hotel example is why people would be using their cell as an alarm. At home I have a clock radio on the bedside table. When traveling I used to have a digital watch, now I have a cellphone. It doesn't die overnight because it comes with this cable called a charger cable. You plug one end into a wall socket, and the other into the phone. Then it both charges the battery, and uses wall power to run. Amazing. Also, the "LOCKED" screen has a clock on it so the steps are "Push Button, Read Time" I admit it's one extra step from reading a clock radio, but there's no need to unlock, and no more need to put on your reading glasses than there is if you want to read your clock radio. Because while the "unlocked" time is a small print on the task bar up top, the clock when the phone is locked is quite large. I COULD try to set their alarm clock, if the hotel provides one, but I'd rather trust my phone. I used to trust my DS before that ;) Before that I trusted my digital watch. My dad uses a travel alarm clock that you wind up. I guess not trusting the wake-up call service is genetic.
Court order? Don't give them ideas! ;)
I get the feeling that if the only reason you know about product X is because every single time you click "next page" on some shithole newspaper that splits their article into 30 pages, you have to watch a video advertisement for X and then answer a pop quiz, you'll have some sort of Pavlovian rage response, rather than "Oh hey I've heard of X before, better buy that!"
Authors don't always share all the views of every single one of their characters. It's quite inappropriate to attribute a quote to the author when it's spoken by a character. That's taking things out of context.
Because Bell charges usage fees of $1/GB to their own customers, so if they can't charge at LEAST $1.12/GB to third parties then how can they possibly compete with third parties? I mean, besides slashing their lines like they do now.
It should be noted that Bell only charges $1.00 per GB to their own customers. So, somehow Bell is being given government force to be allowed to charge the customers of a third party MORE for using only their copper lines, than they charge their own customers for using their copper lines, their modems, and their internet backbone.
Bell already HAD usage base fees. This isn't about what Bell is allowed to do to their own customers. This is about what Bell is allowed to do to people who are NOT their customers. Bell is now allowed to demand bandwidth usage from third parties that use their lines, and tax those third parties. That is, TekSavvy connects their modem to a Bell copper line, and then wires that modem to their backbone. And Bell gets to hold a gun to your head and say you cannot download more GB than WE allow our customers or else it's not fair to us! Please at least read the summary.
The committee doesn't have the authority to set the budget. Their job is to audit the security programs and review the budget. They cannot set the budget. So, complaining about the direction it's going is 100% what her job is to do. Your complaint about the director not knowing what's in all 50,000 of those reports BEFORE HE WAS FUCKING CONFIRMED is even more laughable.
Seems fairly clear, my ass. It's gone up 3 fold since 9/11. This is a true fact. If truth has become partisan then all is lost. Would saying "Since 9/11" be less partisan for your liking? Or is that worse since 9/11 is a registered trademark of Rudy Guiliani? Maybe "lately?" is that non-partisan enough? At any rate, as a committee it's bipartisan, currently with 8 Dems and 7 Repubs. Can't anybody say ANYTHING AT ALL without everybody screaming "A democratic woman, lets not listen!"
At any rate, the Committee's job isn't to set the budget, it's job is to review and audit the various intel programs. It also reviews the budget, but is not in charge of approving it. Though it does draft the appropriate legislation to authorize funding for those 1,200 different intel agencies, it doesn't have the authority to say no. They have asked for a subcommittee with that authority, but the Senate Appropriations Committee is fighting them on that one.
It is, XP mode is built into Windows 7 Ultimate/Business. You just have to install it. It's free, no licensing fee at all. Just install it, set apps to run in XP mode, and it's handed by a virtual machine in the background, and you get the window just like any other application, right on your desktop. All you need is Windows 7 Business, which I'm sure is what businesses have if they are big enough to have legacy web apps. And a CPU that supports HW virtualization, which any new one will. While IE6, in theory, could prevent you from upgrading to Windows 7 on an existing machine, if it's CPU is too old, it's no reason to avoid it on new machines. They can run IE6 just as well as XP does.