Didn't get one thing: the article says the star is 13 billions yo, but it's 375 ly from our solar system.
I always have thought that distance meant age. Which other technique there is to tell a star's age?
Distance is... well, distance. The number of light years something is away means that we are looking at what happened that many years ago. In this case, what we see happened 375 years ago. It has nothing to do with the age of the object. However, if we see a galaxy 13 billion light years away, we know that the galaxy is 13 billion years old since nothing is that much older, provided it still exists. We don't really know as we would be seeing it as it existed 13 billion years ago. To see how it looks today, we'll have to wait another 13+ billion years and look at it again.
As for judging the age of a star, I'll take a stab at it, although IANAA. If I recall correctly, there are several methods used to judge the age of a star. We know by looking at what the star is composed of which developmental stage it is currently at. We know by its size and energy output how fast it is burning its fuel. So, if we see a large, bright, hydrogen star, we know that it is fairly young since large hydrogen stars don't last long. We can be more accurate by figuring out how fast it burns its fuel and how much it has left (helium to hydrogen ratio). If we see that it is composed mostly of helium, we know that it is in its second stage. We can judge by its size how long it was in its hydrogen stage before it fused it all to helium.
I have not RTFA, but I believe they are judging that this star was one of the first out of gate judging by how much metal it has in its core, meaning that it is very, very old.
Take with salt. Like I said, I'm no astrophysicist.
What I don't understand is how do the scientist know that these were not rogue planets, formed much later and then became trapped by the star's gravity. Just because a star has planets orbiting it, doesn't mean that those planets formed along with the star.
Actually, it's unknown what it was like before the big bang.
Like the parent said, time itself did not exist until the big bang, therefor, there is no "before" the big bang. There is no such thing as before time, just as there is no such thing as negative mass or negative distance.
All I hear from your bullshit is, "I don't care about Arctic Wildlife, so I think we should drill, damn the consequences!"
Then you are illiterate. Did you read the part about razing a wooded area to build a Starbucks or shopping mall? I'm willing to bet your house and place of business are built on an area that was once contained wildlife. Why the land your house was built on any less important than ANWR? Better yet, what makes you so important that you deserve the right to take away land from nature for your own castle but no one else can use the land that makes up ANWR?
So until you protest every single new development and start living outdoors, all I hear from your comment is, "I only care about wildlife that does not get in MY way."
I think you misunderstand what externalities are. They are like producing negative goods and services. If the cost on society of drilling somewhere is higher than the benefit, then sure, it should be prevented!
If you care about the bottom line, you must consider the global bottom line.
Right, but in speaking about ANWR as an example, what would be cost on society if we drilled in ANWR? We are drilling less than a mile away from ANWR and the cost to society has been NULL. Would it make a difference if that drilling was one mile East of Prudhoe Bay? Since I have never in my many years met anyone who has ever been to ANWR, I wonder what the cost would be if ANWR didn't exist at all. It's not like we are wanting to drill on Hawaii beaches.
We also have to consider the costs of NOT drilling. Note that ANWR is about the size of Wisconsin. What is the cost to society of taking an area larger than most states and saying, "this entire area is off limits." It seems odd to me that people fight so hard to "protect" an area that is thousands of miles from anywhere they will ever be, but have no problems seeing a wooded area in their own neighborhood cut down to build a Starbucks. Add on the fact that drilling in Prudhoe Bay has had little to no impact on the wildlife in the area, we could safely assume that drilling a few miles away in ANWR would have the same non-impact. Still, even if we razed the entire drilling area, have people in San Diego felt the impact of the land lost to build a shopping mall in Racine WI?
People forget that the point is to maximise the goods and services produced, as well as their access from everyone.
Yes, that is the point, but, believe it or not, there are people who try to limit our access to oil. Environmentalists are the first that come to mind. If the point were to maximize production, we would be drilling in ANWR, for example.
Your post is spot on up until the last sentence. While I'm not railing on you, this is more for the people who think that oil in the US is the US's oil. This is not the case.
Start taxing them at a reasonable level for using up non-renewable resources that belongs to the country.
State or government are other words that could be used in place of "country". It wouldn't change the meaning in the slightest, but I feel it takes a more ominous, but accurate, tone.
The resource belongs to whoever holds the mineral rights. If the government can claim the oil under my land, why can't they claim the food that is grown from the soil on my land? See Collectivisation:
Collectivisation was Stalin's answer to his belief that Russia’s agriculture was in a terrible state. Stalin believed that Russia had to be able to feed itself - hence collectivisation - and that at the very least the peasant farmers should be providing food for the workers in the factories if the Five Year Plans were going to succeed
Now change that to oil:
and that at the very least the oil companies should be providing oil for the workers in the cities and suburbs
Your linked article says nothing about "You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm"
I found several links referring to organic farmers suing Monsanto fearing that genetically modified pollen may contaminate organic crops, but nothing about Monsanto suing farmers who saved seed from a non-Monsanto crop that had been contaminated by a nearby Monsanto grown one.
Not disagreeing with you. I've just read that several times with no legitimate links to back it up.
go lay on the couch or bed... and mark up her edits
Looking at the cost of paper and toner, wouldn't a used laptop pay for itself in just a couple books and increase her productivity?
Don't make the mistake of buying a portable gamer machine or portable video editing machine to edit documents. Pretty much anything new enough to have a decent display would work.
If she did this for every single page, you would be correct. I did not state it specifically, but she still does most of the editing on her PC and only uses the pen and paper technique whenever she feels like working in front of the TV until she passes out, papers strewn across the floor. Also, she only does a few books a year as a supplement to our income. The cost of a capable notebook would take over quarter of the year's pay for this. An iPad would mean she is working for nothing more than an iPad.
Right now, we are looking at a cheap, wireless, full duplex laser printer. Brother has one for a $100 that will do the job and I think toner costs about $30 for a few thousand sheets. It would take years worth of printing to justify the cost of an iPad or notebook.
Get real. So what if it's free? Support is terrible and most products aren't accessible if you're not familiar with the programming environment enough to compile source code. People want to USE their computers, not tinker and brag about them.
Also, as if it hasn't been said a thousand times, no gaming worth talking about.
This is no longer true. I have not compiled a single thing in years. Sure, I can if I want to, but why? Of course, this is not to say that things have not been compiled on my machine. I've run some install scripts that seem to be compiling, but they require no input from me. Proprietary video drivers are an example. The only requirement was that I had to have the kernel source code downloaded which was as easy and clicking on it in Synaptic.
I don't remember the last time I had to "make" anything.
Gaming? Can't help you there. You do know you can buy an X-Box360 for the price of Windows7 Ultimate, right?
Photoshop -- Gimp
Acrobat -- Pdfedit, scribus, flpsed or even good ol' Open Office (Libre, whatever)
Sharepoint -- Alfresco Labs 3
Call of Duty-- Doom3? How about an X-Box? An X-Box360 cost about the same as a copy of Windows7 Ultimate
Quicken -- Mint
Turbotax -- TurboTax Online
Support for their lousy $50 printer/copier -- Works on my box, even shared with Windows machines. Canon Pixma 16 I believe.
Granted, I haven't tried a lot of these and you may not receive the same functionality you might with your Windows/Mac counterparts, but with the money saved on Photoshop alone, I'd say the tradeoffs are worth it. Add in the lack of malware, customization options and rock solid stability and I think you have a winner.
i haven't had a printer at home for years now and hardly miss it
photos? - CVS or any of the online places and either have them shipped or go pick them up. $.19 cents a photo can't be beat if i need to print a few pages every few months i'll do it at work a big job like 50 pages i'll pay the $7 to fedex/kinko. but i only need that once a year or so
what is there to print that people see a need to buy these things for home use other than for a home business?
My wife is an editor. Textbook manufacturers contract her out to edit textbooks. She receives about 200 pages of text at a time and hates sitting at her PC to read all of that to do her edits. It is much easier for her to print out a chapter, go lay on the couch or bed with her pen and mark up her edits there. When she's done, she loads edits into the PC and replaces the paper back into the printer (backwards of course to print on the back). I told her I might be able to load this onto her Kindle, but she was not interested as she can't mark it up.
Cheap printing still has its place.
**NOTE: I recycle or compost all of the used paper. Please don't tell me how much I hate the environment.
Ah, I see. Well, I have very little interest in using Linux on my main machine, but I do like it in principle. (I am, unfortunately, a very heavy gamer and far too lazy to dual boot or fool around with stuff like WINE).
Nevertheless, you've been very helpful and enlightening. Thank you!
If you are a serious gamer, you probably don't want to use Linux, unfortunately. But, for the average user, Linux is great. My neighbor across the street was constantly bringing his notebook over for "repair". I put the XFCE version of Ubuntu on it and rarely see him at my door with notebook in hand. He still comes by, just not with his computer anymore. The only question he had after I showed him how to get to his stuff was, "What was the password again?" I asked him what street he lived on. He told me and I said, "THAT is your password." He's not a gamer though. He checks his mail, browses the web (weather channel mostly), and plays the occasional card game. I showed him the other cool stuff to like sky maps, Google Earth and so on. He really seems to dig it. He really likes the fact that he has not seen a virus since installing it.
So, if you have that person who you are constantly fixing their machine who doesn't use their PC for gaming, I'd highly recommend Linux. Dual boot setup is extremely easy with the hardest part being the partitioning setup. Once that is done, it will repartitions your drive, installs the boot manager, copies your Windows files and settings over and leaves your windows partition intact, if a bit smaller.
I've honestly never understood why Red Hat would believe that pushing a tablet interface on an OS that's primarily used for servers and corporate desktops makes the slightest amount of sense.
Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.
Since the Ubuntu version of Gnome3 didn't work right because of my AMD/ATI graphics card, I went with the XFCE4 Spin when I installed Fedora. Runs like a champ!
...The rep buys him lunch. How does the rep convince the doctor that his meds are right for the doctor's patients? By giving him samples. All of the above costs money (lots of it) and it all comes out of the marketing budget.
I was raised by a single, self employed mother of two. Insurance was not an option and Hamburger Helper was an expensive, family treat. Of course, our doctor knew this. How did we afford expensive medication? We didn't. The doctor would give my mother samples instead of writing a prescription.
Legal? Don't know. But before I start bad-mouthing "big-Pharm", I have to consider that they had to know what our doctor was doing. What did they think he was going to do with all those samples? I think this was the insurance company's way of keeping their prices high while ensuring that even those that could not afford the drugs still got them.
Later in my childhood, our financial situation improved. Frankly, I don't know if we ever had insurance, but my mother became a fairly successful business owner and married another successful business owner so we could afford our medications and no longer received free samples. I assume our doctor started giving the samples to other single moms who needed them more than we did.
Of course, this is before regulations probably put a stop to such practices, requiring people to become dependent on government provided protection from evil. But when people ask how our country got by without health insurance all those years, things like this is the answer. People knew their doctors and the doctors took care of their patients. Whoever writes the checks writes the rules. When the patient is paying, the patient is the customer. When the government is paying, the government is the customer and the patient becomes the liability. (You may substitute "insurance company" for government in the previous sentence.) Whoever writes the checks writes the rules. The doctors may hate the bureaucracy of government and insurance, but they will do whatever the payer says to do, regardless of what the patient wants.
Rahm Emanuel was President Obama's Cheif of Staff and senior advisor. Basically, Emanuel was to Obama what Karl Rove was to Bush, although Rove was Deputy Chief of Staff, but both men held about the same standing with the president. Emanuel was also a senior adviser to Bill Clinton.
Google has had an electronic NFC based wallet in the market for almost a year now.
Google does a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't already have a patent or a copyright on that said "thing".
Doesn't the article say that Apple just now got the patent? This sounds like prior art unless Apple applied for this patent years ago and it didn't get approved until today.
No. I believe the Christians you want to kick out make up about 0.0001%. That would be about the percentage that rejects science and believes the earth is roughly 6000 years old. However, note that these people are idiots and their religion has nothing to do with it. There are just as big of idiots that are non-religious or belong to some other religion, like Scientology or Heaven's Gate.
In my church, for example, I was told that the universe is roughly 13 billion years old, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old (give or take 6000), and natural selection happens. But don't let the vast majority form your opinion of a group. Keep pointing to the extreme minority that every despises and say that is what comprises the entire group.
Have you seen the list of instruments on MSL? It is pretty comprehensive. It even does isotopic analysis. Can you be more specific about what you can't do with an instrument sent to mars that you could do with a sample returned from there?
Analyze a sample under a high powered electron microscope.
IEDs are often cellphone-triggered. That said, it's far more likely that "imminent threat" would be taken to mean "speech we disagree with"...
No, it's not. The courts will allow shutting off cell networks for a national security issue. Life and limb trump free speech as shown with the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example. Also, the public wouldn't be terribly upset if shutting off the cell networks for a few hours prevented a major or especially heinous terrorist attack, like cell phone triggered bombs in a day care center.
The very second that the state shut down cell networks to silence critics is the second that every media outlet becomes a critic. The government would literally have to shut down all forms of communication, cable news networks, Internet, broadcast TV, radio, satellite radio, newspapers, magazines... EVERYTHING in order to silence the criticism. About 24 hrs after that happens, you will see random armed mobs taking to the streets. Granted, they'll be unorganized as their communications channels would be dead, but they will be armed if with nothing more than boards with nails through them.
As for why this (and most viewdata services) didn't take off in the 80s, the answer is that it wasn't the Internet, but more of a closed, walled garden. Modems were slower, and dial-up calls were more expensive.
I don't know about that. AOL, Compuserve, Genie and the rest of 'em didn't have any problems living within a walled garden. It may have been the fact that it was run through the TV that was the problem.
Speaking of which, I believe the TV mindset was the issue. TV, of course, is a one way communication. It comes to the house and you consume. When PC's came out and BBS's started coming on line, it gave users the opportunity to respond to the content they were receiving. I remember the first BBS I joined was called Houston Chat Channel, and yes, it even had a chat feature where you could chat with other users on the board. Of course, the system only had 9 lines total so it's not like there was a big selection of people to talk with, but it was enough for me to score. Then once AOL came about with its Windows based interface, local and 800 number access, and thousands of users to chat with, it was all over. You could actually use to the system to communicate with other users. I don't think this AT&T system allowed for much in the way of two-way communication.
You're not being berated for paying less. You're being berated for whining about it while abdicating your responsibility to the international community by being fuel hogs.
The US imports 10,270,000 bbls per day. The EU imports 8,613,000 bbls per day.
It appears that US is not the only hog in the pen.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't get one thing: the article says the star is 13 billions yo, but it's 375 ly from our solar system.
I always have thought that distance meant age. Which other technique there is to tell a star's age?
Distance is... well, distance. The number of light years something is away means that we are looking at what happened that many years ago. In this case, what we see happened 375 years ago. It has nothing to do with the age of the object. However, if we see a galaxy 13 billion light years away, we know that the galaxy is 13 billion years old since nothing is that much older, provided it still exists. We don't really know as we would be seeing it as it existed 13 billion years ago. To see how it looks today, we'll have to wait another 13+ billion years and look at it again.
As for judging the age of a star, I'll take a stab at it, although IANAA. If I recall correctly, there are several methods used to judge the age of a star. We know by looking at what the star is composed of which developmental stage it is currently at. We know by its size and energy output how fast it is burning its fuel. So, if we see a large, bright, hydrogen star, we know that it is fairly young since large hydrogen stars don't last long. We can be more accurate by figuring out how fast it burns its fuel and how much it has left (helium to hydrogen ratio). If we see that it is composed mostly of helium, we know that it is in its second stage. We can judge by its size how long it was in its hydrogen stage before it fused it all to helium.
I have not RTFA, but I believe they are judging that this star was one of the first out of gate judging by how much metal it has in its core, meaning that it is very, very old.
Take with salt. Like I said, I'm no astrophysicist.
What I don't understand is how do the scientist know that these were not rogue planets, formed much later and then became trapped by the star's gravity. Just because a star has planets orbiting it, doesn't mean that those planets formed along with the star.
Actually, it's unknown what it was like before the big bang.
Like the parent said, time itself did not exist until the big bang, therefor, there is no "before" the big bang. There is no such thing as before time, just as there is no such thing as negative mass or negative distance.
All I hear from your bullshit is, "I don't care about Arctic Wildlife, so I think we should drill, damn the consequences!"
Then you are illiterate. Did you read the part about razing a wooded area to build a Starbucks or shopping mall? I'm willing to bet your house and place of business are built on an area that was once contained wildlife. Why the land your house was built on any less important than ANWR? Better yet, what makes you so important that you deserve the right to take away land from nature for your own castle but no one else can use the land that makes up ANWR?
So until you protest every single new development and start living outdoors, all I hear from your comment is, "I only care about wildlife that does not get in MY way."
I think you misunderstand what externalities are. They are like producing negative goods and services. If the cost on society of drilling somewhere is higher than the benefit, then sure, it should be prevented!
If you care about the bottom line, you must consider the global bottom line.
Right, but in speaking about ANWR as an example, what would be cost on society if we drilled in ANWR? We are drilling less than a mile away from ANWR and the cost to society has been NULL. Would it make a difference if that drilling was one mile East of Prudhoe Bay? Since I have never in my many years met anyone who has ever been to ANWR, I wonder what the cost would be if ANWR didn't exist at all. It's not like we are wanting to drill on Hawaii beaches.
We also have to consider the costs of NOT drilling. Note that ANWR is about the size of Wisconsin. What is the cost to society of taking an area larger than most states and saying, "this entire area is off limits." It seems odd to me that people fight so hard to "protect" an area that is thousands of miles from anywhere they will ever be, but have no problems seeing a wooded area in their own neighborhood cut down to build a Starbucks. Add on the fact that drilling in Prudhoe Bay has had little to no impact on the wildlife in the area, we could safely assume that drilling a few miles away in ANWR would have the same non-impact. Still, even if we razed the entire drilling area, have people in San Diego felt the impact of the land lost to build a shopping mall in Racine WI?
People forget that the point is to maximise the goods and services produced, as well as their access from everyone.
Yes, that is the point, but, believe it or not, there are people who try to limit our access to oil. Environmentalists are the first that come to mind. If the point were to maximize production, we would be drilling in ANWR, for example.
The first law of supply and demand is that don't talk about the law of supply and demand!
Your post is spot on up until the last sentence. While I'm not railing on you, this is more for the people who think that oil in the US is the US's oil. This is not the case.
Start taxing them at a reasonable level for using up non-renewable resources that belongs to the country.
State or government are other words that could be used in place of "country". It wouldn't change the meaning in the slightest, but I feel it takes a more ominous, but accurate, tone.
The resource belongs to whoever holds the mineral rights. If the government can claim the oil under my land, why can't they claim the food that is grown from the soil on my land? See Collectivisation:
Collectivisation was Stalin's answer to his belief that Russia’s agriculture was in a terrible state. Stalin believed that Russia had to be able to feed itself - hence collectivisation - and that at the very least the peasant farmers should be providing food for the workers in the factories if the Five Year Plans were going to succeed
Now change that to oil:
and that at the very least the oil companies should be providing oil for the workers in the cities and suburbs
Not according to Monsanto. You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091214/0856327337.shtml
Your linked article says nothing about "You can't use the genes (seeds) even if they blew into your farm"
I found several links referring to organic farmers suing Monsanto fearing that genetically modified pollen may contaminate organic crops, but nothing about Monsanto suing farmers who saved seed from a non-Monsanto crop that had been contaminated by a nearby Monsanto grown one.
Not disagreeing with you. I've just read that several times with no legitimate links to back it up.
go lay on the couch or bed ... and mark up her edits
Looking at the cost of paper and toner, wouldn't a used laptop pay for itself in just a couple books and increase her productivity?
Don't make the mistake of buying a portable gamer machine or portable video editing machine to edit documents. Pretty much anything new enough to have a decent display would work.
If she did this for every single page, you would be correct. I did not state it specifically, but she still does most of the editing on her PC and only uses the pen and paper technique whenever she feels like working in front of the TV until she passes out, papers strewn across the floor. Also, she only does a few books a year as a supplement to our income. The cost of a capable notebook would take over quarter of the year's pay for this. An iPad would mean she is working for nothing more than an iPad.
Right now, we are looking at a cheap, wireless, full duplex laser printer. Brother has one for a $100 that will do the job and I think toner costs about $30 for a few thousand sheets. It would take years worth of printing to justify the cost of an iPad or notebook.
Get real. So what if it's free? Support is terrible and most products aren't accessible if you're not familiar with the programming environment enough to compile source code. People want to USE their computers, not tinker and brag about them.
Also, as if it hasn't been said a thousand times, no gaming worth talking about.
This is no longer true. I have not compiled a single thing in years. Sure, I can if I want to, but why? Of course, this is not to say that things have not been compiled on my machine. I've run some install scripts that seem to be compiling, but they require no input from me. Proprietary video drivers are an example. The only requirement was that I had to have the kernel source code downloaded which was as easy and clicking on it in Synaptic.
I don't remember the last time I had to "make" anything.
Gaming? Can't help you there. You do know you can buy an X-Box360 for the price of Windows7 Ultimate, right?
Photoshop -- Gimp
Acrobat -- Pdfedit, scribus, flpsed or even good ol' Open Office (Libre, whatever)
Sharepoint -- Alfresco Labs 3
Call of Duty-- Doom3? How about an X-Box? An X-Box360 cost about the same as a copy of Windows7 Ultimate
Quicken -- Mint
Turbotax -- TurboTax Online
Support for their lousy $50 printer/copier -- Works on my box, even shared with Windows machines. Canon Pixma 16 I believe.
Granted, I haven't tried a lot of these and you may not receive the same functionality you might with your Windows/Mac counterparts, but with the money saved on Photoshop alone, I'd say the tradeoffs are worth it. Add in the lack of malware, customization options and rock solid stability and I think you have a winner.
The hard part is explaining this to users.
i haven't had a printer at home for years now and hardly miss it
photos? - CVS or any of the online places and either have them shipped or go pick them up. $.19 cents a photo can't be beat
if i need to print a few pages every few months i'll do it at work
a big job like 50 pages i'll pay the $7 to fedex/kinko. but i only need that once a year or so
what is there to print that people see a need to buy these things for home use other than for a home business?
My wife is an editor. Textbook manufacturers contract her out to edit textbooks. She receives about 200 pages of text at a time and hates sitting at her PC to read all of that to do her edits. It is much easier for her to print out a chapter, go lay on the couch or bed with her pen and mark up her edits there. When she's done, she loads edits into the PC and replaces the paper back into the printer (backwards of course to print on the back). I told her I might be able to load this onto her Kindle, but she was not interested as she can't mark it up.
Cheap printing still has its place.
**NOTE: I recycle or compost all of the used paper. Please don't tell me how much I hate the environment.
Ah, I see. Well, I have very little interest in using Linux on my main machine, but I do like it in principle. (I am, unfortunately, a very heavy gamer and far too lazy to dual boot or fool around with stuff like WINE).
Nevertheless, you've been very helpful and enlightening. Thank you!
If you are a serious gamer, you probably don't want to use Linux, unfortunately. But, for the average user, Linux is great. My neighbor across the street was constantly bringing his notebook over for "repair". I put the XFCE version of Ubuntu on it and rarely see him at my door with notebook in hand. He still comes by, just not with his computer anymore. The only question he had after I showed him how to get to his stuff was, "What was the password again?" I asked him what street he lived on. He told me and I said, "THAT is your password." He's not a gamer though. He checks his mail, browses the web (weather channel mostly), and plays the occasional card game. I showed him the other cool stuff to like sky maps, Google Earth and so on. He really seems to dig it. He really likes the fact that he has not seen a virus since installing it.
So, if you have that person who you are constantly fixing their machine who doesn't use their PC for gaming, I'd highly recommend Linux. Dual boot setup is extremely easy with the hardest part being the partitioning setup. Once that is done, it will repartitions your drive, installs the boot manager, copies your Windows files and settings over and leaves your windows partition intact, if a bit smaller.
Well, 1-900 numbers were pretty big before the internet came along and undercut them on price.
And as long as you keep it text, even Dr. Girlfriend can be an operator.
I see it still sucks, then.
I've honestly never understood why Red Hat would believe that pushing a tablet interface on an OS that's primarily used for servers and corporate desktops makes the slightest amount of sense.
Totally agree. Leave the tablet interface to the tables and the desktop interface to the desktop! When Fedora releases a Tablet Spin, they should go with the tablet interface. I don't understand why Fedora wouldn't just go with KDE as the default since it's still a desktop interface (assuming we are limited to the big two managers, Gnome and KDE). KDE (finally) runs great.
Since the Ubuntu version of Gnome3 didn't work right because of my AMD/ATI graphics card, I went with the XFCE4 Spin when I installed Fedora. Runs like a champ!
...The rep buys him lunch. How does the rep convince the doctor that his meds are right for the doctor's patients? By giving him samples. All of the above costs money (lots of it) and it all comes out of the marketing budget.
I was raised by a single, self employed mother of two. Insurance was not an option and Hamburger Helper was an expensive, family treat. Of course, our doctor knew this. How did we afford expensive medication? We didn't. The doctor would give my mother samples instead of writing a prescription.
Legal? Don't know. But before I start bad-mouthing "big-Pharm", I have to consider that they had to know what our doctor was doing. What did they think he was going to do with all those samples? I think this was the insurance company's way of keeping their prices high while ensuring that even those that could not afford the drugs still got them.
Later in my childhood, our financial situation improved. Frankly, I don't know if we ever had insurance, but my mother became a fairly successful business owner and married another successful business owner so we could afford our medications and no longer received free samples. I assume our doctor started giving the samples to other single moms who needed them more than we did.
Of course, this is before regulations probably put a stop to such practices, requiring people to become dependent on government provided protection from evil. But when people ask how our country got by without health insurance all those years, things like this is the answer. People knew their doctors and the doctors took care of their patients. Whoever writes the checks writes the rules. When the patient is paying, the patient is the customer. When the government is paying, the government is the customer and the patient becomes the liability. (You may substitute "insurance company" for government in the previous sentence.) Whoever writes the checks writes the rules. The doctors may hate the bureaucracy of government and insurance, but they will do whatever the payer says to do, regardless of what the patient wants.
Who?
Rahm Emanuel was President Obama's Cheif of Staff and senior advisor. Basically, Emanuel was to Obama what Karl Rove was to Bush, although Rove was Deputy Chief of Staff, but both men held about the same standing with the president. Emanuel was also a senior adviser to Bill Clinton.
Google does a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't already have a patent or a copyright on that said "thing".
Doesn't the article say that Apple just now got the patent? This sounds like prior art unless Apple applied for this patent years ago and it didn't get approved until today.
OK, most of the Christians.
Better?
No. I believe the Christians you want to kick out make up about 0.0001%. That would be about the percentage that rejects science and believes the earth is roughly 6000 years old. However, note that these people are idiots and their religion has nothing to do with it. There are just as big of idiots that are non-religious or belong to some other religion, like Scientology or Heaven's Gate.
In my church, for example, I was told that the universe is roughly 13 billion years old, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old (give or take 6000), and natural selection happens. But don't let the vast majority form your opinion of a group. Keep pointing to the extreme minority that every despises and say that is what comprises the entire group.
It's not a case of being right or wrong, it a case of being flat out lied to by people who want to go to war.
Which people would that be; Clinton or Bush?
Have you seen the list of instruments on MSL? It is pretty comprehensive. It even does isotopic analysis. Can you be more specific about what you can't do with an instrument sent to mars that you could do with a sample returned from there?
Analyze a sample under a high powered electron microscope.
IEDs are often cellphone-triggered. That said, it's far more likely that "imminent threat" would be taken to mean "speech we disagree with"...
No, it's not. The courts will allow shutting off cell networks for a national security issue. Life and limb trump free speech as shown with the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example. Also, the public wouldn't be terribly upset if shutting off the cell networks for a few hours prevented a major or especially heinous terrorist attack, like cell phone triggered bombs in a day care center.
The very second that the state shut down cell networks to silence critics is the second that every media outlet becomes a critic. The government would literally have to shut down all forms of communication, cable news networks, Internet, broadcast TV, radio, satellite radio, newspapers, magazines... EVERYTHING in order to silence the criticism. About 24 hrs after that happens, you will see random armed mobs taking to the streets. Granted, they'll be unorganized as their communications channels would be dead, but they will be armed if with nothing more than boards with nails through them.
As for why this (and most viewdata services) didn't take off in the 80s, the answer is that it wasn't the Internet, but more of a closed, walled garden. Modems were slower, and dial-up calls were more expensive.
I don't know about that. AOL, Compuserve, Genie and the rest of 'em didn't have any problems living within a walled garden. It may have been the fact that it was run through the TV that was the problem.
Speaking of which, I believe the TV mindset was the issue. TV, of course, is a one way communication. It comes to the house and you consume. When PC's came out and BBS's started coming on line, it gave users the opportunity to respond to the content they were receiving. I remember the first BBS I joined was called Houston Chat Channel, and yes, it even had a chat feature where you could chat with other users on the board. Of course, the system only had 9 lines total so it's not like there was a big selection of people to talk with, but it was enough for me to score. Then once AOL came about with its Windows based interface, local and 800 number access, and thousands of users to chat with, it was all over. You could actually use to the system to communicate with other users. I don't think this AT&T system allowed for much in the way of two-way communication.
You're not being berated for paying less. You're being berated for whining about it while abdicating your responsibility to the international community by being fuel hogs.
The US imports 10,270,000 bbls per day. The EU imports 8,613,000 bbls per day.
It appears that US is not the only hog in the pen.