It's possible any president was born anywhere, but there wasn't any stink about anyone else, just Obama. That's the problem with her bat-shit crazyness.
Its looks have nothing to do with it being a dev kit. Sure, the thing looks awesome, but it's still just a dev kit. The fact you need tutorials to just get the thing to do something strongly hints at it being a dev kit. What would you call it?
Soooo you spend years not using some very good software because it's proprietary and might force you, at some point in the future, to not use it? Sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face. What if they don't stop supporting the linux client? Then you've permanently removed yourself from being able to use Skype, and forced yourself to use some half-baked not-as-good alternative. Genius.
Sorry, are you making a guess as to the efficiency of the design of this car based on it's performance by one driver on one course on one day? Surely not. I had you pegged for a rational person.
You've not used Windows in a while, or at least haven't been paying attention. Windows will mark any executable downloaded via a possibly-untrustworthy source as being untrustworthy, and upon attempted execution will ask whether you want to run it. It's not as easy as you seem to think it is. It's not 1997 any more.
Yeah, but if "new stuff doesn't work", it's a moot point, as the enterprise in question will be waiting for support for hardware they can already purchase, and which is already supported in another OS. Legacy is one thing, but if it comes at the price of progress, it's useless.
The original engineers did create something awesome, but since then it's practically died a thousand times, and the only reason it's able to keep working are the advances in technology at the base station, which is able to correct for the errors the probe is generating. It's not as if the machine is working just as it did the first day it was in space, it's not. All this teary-eyed nostalgia is abject bullshit. The engineers back in the day created a hardened, relatively-simple machine, and shot it into space. Since then it's been falling apart. And somehow this is a testament to the skill of the old engineers, and a damning indictment of the modern-day engineers (who managed to keep it alive for so long). Old codger logic scares me.
Being proud of the accomplishments of others is like feeling full after someone else eats a meal - a well-meant gesture, I'm sure, but ultimately empty.
So yes, you can be proud of the accomplishments of others, just know that it makes no sense and is merely pointless posturing.
You didn't make your government, you didn't make your country's history, and you didn't accomplish the greatness you attribute to it. Other people did.
There are "Libertarians" and there are "libertarians". Libertarians, with a capital L, are just selfish conservatives who want their own label so they can get together and complain about things they actively make use of without people pointing out the abject hypocrisy of their position. Libertarians, with a small l, are the real distinct movement with actual aims and an actual methodology that doesn't end in brick-wall hypocrisy.
Or increased/moved currents in the ocean, driving more water to a single place, coupled with a local geography that makes a localised increase in retention more likely.
Hmm. Usually it's a hash of the password that is stored. The entered password is then hashed the same way, and if the result is the same, access is granted. Encrypted data can be unencrypted, but hashed data can't be unhashed.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even close to 50MB, let alone 1GB!
It's possible any president was born anywhere, but there wasn't any stink about anyone else, just Obama. That's the problem with her bat-shit crazyness.
Its looks have nothing to do with it being a dev kit. Sure, the thing looks awesome, but it's still just a dev kit. The fact you need tutorials to just get the thing to do something strongly hints at it being a dev kit. What would you call it?
You point and laugh while using second-best software that is routinely shown up by the non-free software out there? Sounds rather silly to me.
Soooo you spend years not using some very good software because it's proprietary and might force you, at some point in the future, to not use it? Sounds like cutting your nose off to spite your face. What if they don't stop supporting the linux client? Then you've permanently removed yourself from being able to use Skype, and forced yourself to use some half-baked not-as-good alternative. Genius.
Right. So now is not the time to complain - wait for the bad deed to actually occur before screaming about said bad deed.
Sorry, are you making a guess as to the efficiency of the design of this car based on it's performance by one driver on one course on one day? Surely not. I had you pegged for a rational person.
Bill started his foundation in 1994, when he was still working at MS. Just FYI. It kind of hurts your argument when it's based on nonsense.
You've not used Windows in a while, or at least haven't been paying attention. Windows will mark any executable downloaded via a possibly-untrustworthy source as being untrustworthy, and upon attempted execution will ask whether you want to run it. It's not as easy as you seem to think it is. It's not 1997 any more.
Nope. The use of POWs, including the bodies of those under your care, for propaganda purposes, is still illegal.
Yeah, but if "new stuff doesn't work", it's a moot point, as the enterprise in question will be waiting for support for hardware they can already purchase, and which is already supported in another OS. Legacy is one thing, but if it comes at the price of progress, it's useless.
Due process is a bitch, huh?
You're not allowed to parade corpses around on TV - that's a violation of the Geneva convention, and not to mention fucking retarded.
I love how you start with uncertainty, then immediately turn that into total certainty by involving a paranoid plot. You should see a doctor.
The original engineers did create something awesome, but since then it's practically died a thousand times, and the only reason it's able to keep working are the advances in technology at the base station, which is able to correct for the errors the probe is generating. It's not as if the machine is working just as it did the first day it was in space, it's not. All this teary-eyed nostalgia is abject bullshit. The engineers back in the day created a hardened, relatively-simple machine, and shot it into space. Since then it's been falling apart. And somehow this is a testament to the skill of the old engineers, and a damning indictment of the modern-day engineers (who managed to keep it alive for so long). Old codger logic scares me.
Being proud of the accomplishments of others is like feeling full after someone else eats a meal - a well-meant gesture, I'm sure, but ultimately empty.
So yes, you can be proud of the accomplishments of others, just know that it makes no sense and is merely pointless posturing.
You didn't make your government, you didn't make your country's history, and you didn't accomplish the greatness you attribute to it. Other people did.
There are "Libertarians" and there are "libertarians". Libertarians, with a capital L, are just selfish conservatives who want their own label so they can get together and complain about things they actively make use of without people pointing out the abject hypocrisy of their position. Libertarians, with a small l, are the real distinct movement with actual aims and an actual methodology that doesn't end in brick-wall hypocrisy.
The North African front, while small, did tie up a lot of Germany's very-well-trained troops and command.
It's "Britain" or the "United Kingdom", not "England". This isn't the 18th century :)
If you use the filesize and a decent hash, it's very difficult to find collisions.
But not selling it for cash, just page impressions.
Or increased/moved currents in the ocean, driving more water to a single place, coupled with a local geography that makes a localised increase in retention more likely.
Bill started the foundation in 1994, when he was solidly still at Microsoft in a very hands-on position, and stayed there for a rather long time.
Hmm. Usually it's a hash of the password that is stored. The entered password is then hashed the same way, and if the result is the same, access is granted. Encrypted data can be unencrypted, but hashed data can't be unhashed.
No you don't.