How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?
Err... don't they? ie6 (I think) and ie7 (for sure) have a box in the top right corner when you visit the google home page that says "Click here to install the google toolbar" which will also make Google the default search provider.
Simple solution: abandon the product. Drop support not just for the Expression Edition, but for all editions of Visual Studio.
Let's rephrase this a bit, shall we? "Simple solution: take something you've invested years in, and just throw it away." Scorched Earth sounds great... until the time comes to burn your own house down.
My take is that those four have been brainwashed by the Cylons to think they're Cylons too (the XO can't be a Cylon, he was fighting them before they evolved into skinjobs)
All of this has happened before... and all of this will happen again.
As a photographer who edits images with 12 bits of color depth, let me just say, you're full of shit. Dithering will never take the place of a properly calibrated monitor, and with literally half the color depth of my images, the Apple monitors would be counterproductive at best.
Actually, "half the color depth" would be 11-bit, not 6-bit...
Speaking as a Tennessean, you are indeed in violation of the law if you carry a firearm into a school.
Assuming you have a carry permit (issued by any state in the US--we do not require your state to recognize ours before we recognize yours) you ARE allowed to possess a firearm in your vehicle when dropping off or picking up (or even if the vehicle is parked on campus, provided you are not a student of the school.)
he key thing to realize about firearms and concealed carry laws is that to make that stuff work, the person with the firearm in the defensive position needs to have the willingness to kill or at least severely impair the aggressor to the point where violence is abated.
Let that sink in for a moment. Do you feel safer with your kids in an environment where one of the faculties has made a conscious decision that he is willing to kill? Does that unnerve you like it unnerves me?
How about "conscious decision that they are willing to kill in order to protect innocent life?" Personally, I find that thought pretty comforting--in fact, I'd feel significantly LESS safe if I knew that there were not [other] people out there with the same mindset. Indeed, if there were not, we would have neither soldiers nor police officers--or at least not the kind you'd want around, anyway.
but i dont think you're average pistol club shooter will mind if it takes a few seconds to unlock his pistol's safety to fire. they have no reason to need speed safety unlocking.
If you're a competitive shooter, this is absolutely false--seconds count. There's also the problem of not being able to use such a pistol as a defensive weapon (seconds count in that arena, too.)
all 1911-type pistols have a grip safety, as well as the Springfield XD series. I agree - I like the feature, wish my Glock had one; I'd feel more comfortable reholstering.
I agree with your point. I carry a Glock 23, and whenever I wear an IWB holster, I get a little nervous that something is going to snag the trigger. That said, I don't believe that it is possible to safely re-holster a pistol without dis-engaging a grip safety, so this would not help the problem (though a thumb safety would.)
There are few places in a modern car where you can set the cup down convenietly.
Indeed. If only modern cars came with some kind of receptacle for your cup. Maybe they could call it a "cup holder" and include one or two of them in each vehicle sold.
Just curious, but does the university that you're talking about happen to be Columbia? I ratehr fondly recall digging through their system (at 1200bps!) in a manner similar to the one you describe (minus the porn.)
Consumer protection laws in most European countries require sellers to offer products unbundled when they are clearly distinct products. Since a computer can be used without Windows, and can be bought without from other vendors, and since Windows is available separately this is a pretty clear cut case.
This sounds like it will be really fun for Apple, now that they're on x86 hardware.
The part that I don't undestand is this: Why do they need just one generator? If you're having difficulties obtaining a 2Mw unit, wouldn't it make sense to get two smaller units?
Keep reading the article--further down it says that large data centers (like MS and Google are building) need 20 or 30 2MW generators! My question: if you power requirements are that high, surely it must make sense to build your own powerplants? Multi-year construction time, I guess?
I know there are several 60-75MW units under construction in the US now (a mix of coal and gas, IIRC.) If it makes sense for a utility to build them, surely it would make sense for a data center owner to do so if they were going to use all of that capacity.
Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order. They were made illegal some time around 1900, but no one could be bothered with amending the Constitution to make such a law possible
The law you are thinking of is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It does not make fully automatic weapons illegal, but rather regulates the possession of certain types of weapons, which includes short barreled (i.e. "sawed off") rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices" (things like hand grenades), firearms suppressors ("silencers") and a category called "any other weapon" (which isn't really "any other weapon" but instead regulates things that don't neatly fall into other categories--items like a gun built into a liquor flask, for example. Also, a very short pump action shotgun that has never been fitted with a shoulder stock would be classified here.)
If you want one, in general all you need to do is pay a $200 tax ($5 for an "any other weapon") and fill out some forms.
In 1986, the congress passed (and Ronald Reagan signed) the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which rolled back some of the excesses of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In this bill was an amendment that made it unlawful to register a machine gun after the date of enactment (May, 1986.) So the pool of legal machine guns is fixed, and prices are high.
By swapping out the batteries at the charging station and slotting in freshly charged ones.
Next question?
Oh, and there's only a factor of 500 between lead-acid batteries and petrol with regard to energy density, and less than a factor of 50 between lithium batteries and petrol.
If gas weighs in at six pounds a gallon, that "factor of fifty" says your battery is going to weigh three hundred pounds per gallon of gas equivalent. "Swapping out the batteries at the filling station" isn't a viable option here.
Imagine for a moment that the cartel was broken and oil could be sold by one supplier for a lower price. That supplier would sell all the oil, and make even more profit, though at a lower margin. Since that isn't happening, it's clear the cartel isn't broken.
If the price is going up, and demand doesn't drop all that much as a result, why would you lower your prices? If you're producing a million barrels of oil a day, and selling all of them at $70/bbl, how exactly would you make a greater profit by lowering the price to $65/bbl?
In a decent country, people would be talking about how those abuses led to the American oil/gas cartel getting broken up and reined in.
Imagine for a moment that the population collectively decided that oil was too expensive, and set a price cap of, say, $40/bbl. What do you think the results of this would be?
Here's a hint: the US is a net importer of oil. If the US consumer can't, by law, pay more than $40/bbl, but people in other nations are willing to spend $60/bbl, who will oil producers sell their oil to? What will happen to supply in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
Err... don't they? ie6 (I think) and ie7 (for sure) have a box in the top right corner when you visit the google home page that says "Click here to install the google toolbar" which will also make Google the default search provider.
Install the compatibility pack?
Let's rephrase this a bit, shall we? "Simple solution: take something you've invested years in, and just throw it away." Scorched Earth sounds great... until the time comes to burn your own house down.
All of this has happened before... and all of this will happen again.
If you can't reasonably extend the first amendment to cover it, perhaps you might try the ninth or the tenth.
Actually, "half the color depth" would be 11-bit, not 6-bit...
Just sayin.
Speaking as a Tennessean, you are indeed in violation of the law if you carry a firearm into a school.
Assuming you have a carry permit (issued by any state in the US--we do not require your state to recognize ours before we recognize yours) you ARE allowed to possess a firearm in your vehicle when dropping off or picking up (or even if the vehicle is parked on campus, provided you are not a student of the school.)
How about "conscious decision that they are willing to kill in order to protect innocent life?" Personally, I find that thought pretty comforting--in fact, I'd feel significantly LESS safe if I knew that there were not [other] people out there with the same mindset. Indeed, if there were not, we would have neither soldiers nor police officers--or at least not the kind you'd want around, anyway.
This is why places like Washington D.C. and Chicago are so safe, right?
If you're a competitive shooter, this is absolutely false--seconds count. There's also the problem of not being able to use such a pistol as a defensive weapon (seconds count in that arena, too.)
I agree with your point. I carry a Glock 23, and whenever I wear an IWB holster, I get a little nervous that something is going to snag the trigger. That said, I don't believe that it is possible to safely re-holster a pistol without dis-engaging a grip safety, so this would not help the problem (though a thumb safety would.)
Indeed. If only modern cars came with some kind of receptacle for your cup. Maybe they could call it a "cup holder" and include one or two of them in each vehicle sold.
Now we need software that can breed sexually.
Nahh, the risk of virus transmission is too high...
The NRA claims that just having a handgun in your house is going to protect you.
The NRA claims no such thing.
Just curious, but does the university that you're talking about happen to be Columbia? I ratehr fondly recall digging through their system (at 1200bps!) in a manner similar to the one you describe (minus the porn.)
I'd blow it on ammunition anyway.
.303? :)
Does Wal-Mart even carry
I'm pretty bummed--I'd so wanted book seven to be named "Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom."
Harrison Ford could have had a cameo in the movie...
In short, Apple can argue that the price of OS X on a Mac is $0.
Not so easy to do, when the yearly upgrade costs $99.
Consumer protection laws in most European countries require sellers to offer products unbundled when they are clearly distinct products. Since a computer can be used without Windows, and can be bought without from other vendors, and since Windows is available separately this is a pretty clear cut case.
This sounds like it will be really fun for Apple, now that they're on x86 hardware.
The part that I don't undestand is this: Why do they need just one generator? If you're having difficulties obtaining a 2Mw unit, wouldn't it make sense to get two smaller units?
Keep reading the article--further down it says that large data centers (like MS and Google are building) need 20 or 30 2MW generators! My question: if you power requirements are that high, surely it must make sense to build your own powerplants? Multi-year construction time, I guess?
I know there are several 60-75MW units under construction in the US now (a mix of coal and gas, IIRC.) If it makes sense for a utility to build them, surely it would make sense for a data center owner to do so if they were going to use all of that capacity.
Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order. They were made illegal some time around 1900, but no one could be bothered with amending the Constitution to make such a law possible
The law you are thinking of is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It does not make fully automatic weapons illegal, but rather regulates the possession of certain types of weapons, which includes short barreled (i.e. "sawed off") rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices" (things like hand grenades), firearms suppressors ("silencers") and a category called "any other weapon" (which isn't really "any other weapon" but instead regulates things that don't neatly fall into other categories--items like a gun built into a liquor flask, for example. Also, a very short pump action shotgun that has never been fitted with a shoulder stock would be classified here.)
If you want one, in general all you need to do is pay a $200 tax ($5 for an "any other weapon") and fill out some forms.
In 1986, the congress passed (and Ronald Reagan signed) the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which rolled back some of the excesses of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In this bill was an amendment that made it unlawful to register a machine gun after the date of enactment (May, 1986.) So the pool of legal machine guns is fixed, and prices are high.
By swapping out the batteries at the charging station and slotting in freshly charged ones.
Next question?
Oh, and there's only a factor of 500 between lead-acid batteries and petrol with regard to energy density, and less than a factor of 50 between lithium batteries and petrol.
If gas weighs in at six pounds a gallon, that "factor of fifty" says your battery is going to weigh three hundred pounds per gallon of gas equivalent. "Swapping out the batteries at the filling station" isn't a viable option here.
Imagine for a moment that the cartel was broken and oil could be sold by one supplier for a lower price. That supplier would sell all the oil, and make even more profit, though at a lower margin. Since that isn't happening, it's clear the cartel isn't broken.
If the price is going up, and demand doesn't drop all that much as a result, why would you lower your prices? If you're producing a million barrels of oil a day, and selling all of them at $70/bbl, how exactly would you make a greater profit by lowering the price to $65/bbl?
In a decent country, people would be talking about how those abuses led to the American oil/gas cartel getting broken up and reined in.
Imagine for a moment that the population collectively decided that oil was too expensive, and set a price cap of, say, $40/bbl. What do you think the results of this would be?
Here's a hint: the US is a net importer of oil. If the US consumer can't, by law, pay more than $40/bbl, but people in other nations are willing to spend $60/bbl, who will oil producers sell their oil to? What will happen to supply in the US?
The next month, I paid the whole amount off, including the arrears. When my mortgage company checked my rating shortly after that, it was over 900.
A perfect FICO score is 850.