I'm sure there are a lot of OEM and retail copies of Windows 7 sitting in warehouses. Sooner or later they will run out and you will have little vhoivr, unless you want to test your luck with eBay.
People keep claiming the tablet market is drying up but every where I go they're becoming more common. I was at an annual job fair last week and I was amazed to see most of the people at the booths had tablets. Maybe one in four had a notebook. The penetration in the business world is picking up pace so far as I can tell. Touch may suck, but then again so does the QWERTY keyboard.
Get a lawyer. Countersue for $100,000 for the complainant filing false affidavits with the court. When they try to toss out the claims, say you will settle for $10,000 plus legal fees, otherwise it's off to fucking court.
Why should we call them guesses? They are predictions. If they are right, then they further support the theory. If they are wrong, then they indicate some issue (small or large) with the theory.
Do you think predictions yet to be confirmed by General Relativity like gravitational waves are just merely guesses?
Interesting. So you're saying a theory can't make predictions?
Care to tell me where you got your education? I want to make sure my kids are educated as far away from the logical black hole that you grew up in as possible.
I don't give a flying fuck about the environmentalist lobby. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of climatologists and what they say. Trying to assert that climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy makes about as much as sense as Creationists claiming biologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
In short, you're picking the low hanging fruit (which is the green movement), and insisting that the actual scientists are somehow part of a large political cabal. I reject that completely, just as I reject Creationists' claims that biologists are part of some atheistic cabal to bring down religion.
Again, I repeat, the universe doesn't give one fucking shit about your political leanings. They are utterly meaningless. If releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon in the space of three centuries of industrial activity is seriously influencing global climate, then that's what is happening, and that's the end of the sentence. How we choose to deal with it is the political aspect, but we are gravely stupid species if we somehow think that any particular economic system is somehow favored by the universe, and that seems to be where your problem lies. The universe will kill a Libertarian just as quickly as it will kill a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist or a Communist. It does not fucking care about politics.
Tell me, do you think the universe gives one flying fuck about liberals versus conservatives. Do you honestly think nature cares one fucking tiny little bit about your political ideology?
Not even life can make up for what Mars does not have as compared to Earth. It has a far lower gravity and virtually no magnetic field, meaning any dense atmosphere is going to essentially be eroded into space. As I said in another post, the Mars of today is not the Mars of 4 billion to 3 billion years ago, and it seems more and more likely that its early conditions were no more inhospitable to the evolution of life than Earth's (being further away from the Sun it may even have been able to form bodies of liquid water earlier). So if it did have some portion of its biosphere (presuming it ever had one) survive the inevitable decline in favorable conditions, it would have been in places deep in the Martian crust, where some geological energy as well as liquid water could still exist.
Stating that life is going to leave a monstrous footprint on the surface of a planet is a pretty major assumption, that I think at this point is unwarranted. After all, if planets like Europa and Callisto have life in oceans underneath an icy crust, that life may not leave much of detectable evidence on the surface of those worlds either.
It's called investing in the future. I'm sure that building all those aqueducts in various Roman provinces cost the Republic, and later the Empire, vast amounts of coin that if it could not be directly gained, had to be borrowed. The plus side was prosperous cities that were major economic generators. This idea that the only thing any state should worry about is the nebulous creature known as "fiscal responsibility" is pretty strange, first of all because the term has real meaning. Borrowing money to build infrastructure like highways will certainly throw major liabilities on a government's balance sheet, but no one seriously says that the only measure of fiscal responsibility should be liabilities.
Look at this way. At some point in the next century or two, the major industrial powers will likely begin some sort of race for solar system resources. But that race will not be built out of nothing. It will be built out of a whole series of major investments, many (if not most) by governments. Each one of the stepping-stone advances may seem on paper at that moment to be an utter waste of time and money, but at the end of the day, being in that race is only made possible by having made those other investments along the way.
If the US wishes to sit it out, that's fine. In short and medium terms, it will be a net gain, and give some temporary economic advantage over the Europeans, the Chinese and the Japanese (and, pretty soon, Brazil, I'll wager). But at some point, when they've made advances far in advance of the Apollo program, the US will have to rebuild what it gave up in the name "fiscal responsibility", and it may find that that is a lot easier said than done.
Life happened when Earth was in general far far less comfy to life than it is now. Mars likely had similar conditions very early on, but for a number of reasons (lower gravity, lack of magnetic field), it lost the thick atmosphere that would have made liquid water possible for extended periods of time on its surface. The hypothesis is that Mars may have evolved a biosphere during that period when it possessed a dense atmosphere and liquid water. In that case, even after most of the atmosphere disappeared, some portion of the biosphere that had adapted to living deep underground would have continued on even after the surface of the planet had been rendered completely uninhabitable.
And, of course, we do not know for certain that the entire surface is uninhabitable. We have a damned small sample size, and have landed no probes in places like Valles Marineris, where the atmosphere is considerably denser and liquid water may last longer (we have observed fog there). If I was looking for life closer to the surface, I'd bee doing it in the deepest points of Valles Marineris.
Well, enjoy your status as a second tier nation in a couple of hundred years while everyone else is running around the solar system claiming its resources.
I've got a production server running a Wheezy RC as we speak. If I want bleeding edge I can move over to testing. I can see absolutely no reason why I would ever want to run Ubuntu server.
(As an aside, I did run one back in the 10.x days, and Apache 2 and/or PHP 5 had been compiled with some funky flag or another and wouldn't properly display some PHP pages. Moving it over to my Slackware or Debian servers, and they displayed fine.)
Slashdot Mirror
At long last, nuclear porn!
Didn't see any Windows 8 tablets. Looked mainly like iPads.
I'm sure there are a lot of OEM and retail copies of Windows 7 sitting in warehouses. Sooner or later they will run out and you will have little vhoivr, unless you want to test your luck with eBay.
People keep claiming the tablet market is drying up but every where I go they're becoming more common. I was at an annual job fair last week and I was amazed to see most of the people at the booths had tablets. Maybe one in four had a notebook. The penetration in the business world is picking up pace so far as I can tell. Touch may suck, but then again so does the QWERTY keyboard.
The problem is that they're not buying their tablet/mobile OS either.
Did you have something sensible to say, or is aping liars and morons about the best you can do?
I pity you, so fucking stupid, and yet just enough neural hardware to show how contemptibly moronic you are on web forums.
Get a lawyer. Countersue for $100,000 for the complainant filing false affidavits with the court. When they try to toss out the claims, say you will settle for $10,000 plus legal fees, otherwise it's off to fucking court.
Why should we call them guesses? They are predictions. If they are right, then they further support the theory. If they are wrong, then they indicate some issue (small or large) with the theory.
Do you think predictions yet to be confirmed by General Relativity like gravitational waves are just merely guesses?
Interesting. So you're saying a theory can't make predictions?
Care to tell me where you got your education? I want to make sure my kids are educated as far away from the logical black hole that you grew up in as possible.
Oh good grief. Either you're a liar or a gullible moron.
I don't give a flying fuck about the environmentalist lobby. I'm talking about the overwhelming majority of climatologists and what they say. Trying to assert that climatologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy the economy makes about as much as sense as Creationists claiming biologists are part of some evil liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity.
In short, you're picking the low hanging fruit (which is the green movement), and insisting that the actual scientists are somehow part of a large political cabal. I reject that completely, just as I reject Creationists' claims that biologists are part of some atheistic cabal to bring down religion.
Again, I repeat, the universe doesn't give one fucking shit about your political leanings. They are utterly meaningless. If releasing hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon in the space of three centuries of industrial activity is seriously influencing global climate, then that's what is happening, and that's the end of the sentence. How we choose to deal with it is the political aspect, but we are gravely stupid species if we somehow think that any particular economic system is somehow favored by the universe, and that seems to be where your problem lies. The universe will kill a Libertarian just as quickly as it will kill a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist or a Communist. It does not fucking care about politics.
What a delightful group of strawmen.
Tell me, do you think the universe gives one flying fuck about liberals versus conservatives. Do you honestly think nature cares one fucking tiny little bit about your political ideology?
This is what is commonly known as a quote mine. Care to put that back in context, with full citations.
My goodness, you deniers are just as bad as Creationists.
Do you actually believe that, or are you just parroting some pseudo-skeptic's nonsense?
Indeed. This seems more like a battle for a hill so small neither can stand on it.
Not even life can make up for what Mars does not have as compared to Earth. It has a far lower gravity and virtually no magnetic field, meaning any dense atmosphere is going to essentially be eroded into space. As I said in another post, the Mars of today is not the Mars of 4 billion to 3 billion years ago, and it seems more and more likely that its early conditions were no more inhospitable to the evolution of life than Earth's (being further away from the Sun it may even have been able to form bodies of liquid water earlier). So if it did have some portion of its biosphere (presuming it ever had one) survive the inevitable decline in favorable conditions, it would have been in places deep in the Martian crust, where some geological energy as well as liquid water could still exist.
Stating that life is going to leave a monstrous footprint on the surface of a planet is a pretty major assumption, that I think at this point is unwarranted. After all, if planets like Europa and Callisto have life in oceans underneath an icy crust, that life may not leave much of detectable evidence on the surface of those worlds either.
Ask the Germans and Italians how that went as they furiously tried to become grand colonial powers at the end of the 19th century.
It's called investing in the future. I'm sure that building all those aqueducts in various Roman provinces cost the Republic, and later the Empire, vast amounts of coin that if it could not be directly gained, had to be borrowed. The plus side was prosperous cities that were major economic generators. This idea that the only thing any state should worry about is the nebulous creature known as "fiscal responsibility" is pretty strange, first of all because the term has real meaning. Borrowing money to build infrastructure like highways will certainly throw major liabilities on a government's balance sheet, but no one seriously says that the only measure of fiscal responsibility should be liabilities.
Look at this way. At some point in the next century or two, the major industrial powers will likely begin some sort of race for solar system resources. But that race will not be built out of nothing. It will be built out of a whole series of major investments, many (if not most) by governments. Each one of the stepping-stone advances may seem on paper at that moment to be an utter waste of time and money, but at the end of the day, being in that race is only made possible by having made those other investments along the way.
If the US wishes to sit it out, that's fine. In short and medium terms, it will be a net gain, and give some temporary economic advantage over the Europeans, the Chinese and the Japanese (and, pretty soon, Brazil, I'll wager). But at some point, when they've made advances far in advance of the Apollo program, the US will have to rebuild what it gave up in the name "fiscal responsibility", and it may find that that is a lot easier said than done.
Life happened when Earth was in general far far less comfy to life than it is now. Mars likely had similar conditions very early on, but for a number of reasons (lower gravity, lack of magnetic field), it lost the thick atmosphere that would have made liquid water possible for extended periods of time on its surface. The hypothesis is that Mars may have evolved a biosphere during that period when it possessed a dense atmosphere and liquid water. In that case, even after most of the atmosphere disappeared, some portion of the biosphere that had adapted to living deep underground would have continued on even after the surface of the planet had been rendered completely uninhabitable.
And, of course, we do not know for certain that the entire surface is uninhabitable. We have a damned small sample size, and have landed no probes in places like Valles Marineris, where the atmosphere is considerably denser and liquid water may last longer (we have observed fog there). If I was looking for life closer to the surface, I'd bee doing it in the deepest points of Valles Marineris.
Well, enjoy your status as a second tier nation in a couple of hundred years while everyone else is running around the solar system claiming its resources.
I've got a production server running a Wheezy RC as we speak. If I want bleeding edge I can move over to testing. I can see absolutely no reason why I would ever want to run Ubuntu server.
(As an aside, I did run one back in the 10.x days, and Apache 2 and/or PHP 5 had been compiled with some funky flag or another and wouldn't properly display some PHP pages. Moving it over to my Slackware or Debian servers, and they displayed fine.)
I can't sort out why anyone would want to use Ubuntu Server.
Yup. As small or big as you like.
Perhaps you feel you are being treated unfairly. It would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison of Mouseketeers here.
The guy is a sociopath. Be happy he's running EA, and not eating your liver with fava beans and a light change.