Well, in my neighbourhood, that would be "BÖCKER---GRATIS", but thank you for the suggestion. Sometimes the obvious may not be... especially if you've been running a little short on shuteye the last couple of days.
Whereas I've not bothered with having a desktop PC for about 6 or 7 years. Laptop hardware is plenty good enough these days that I see little advantage to having a machine that I can't stick in my rucksack and costs 25% more for the same CPU/RAM.
Amazon's numbers reflect only their own online sales. Given the venue, it's not so surprising that instant-delivery ebooks might be more popular than wait-some-days printed books.
However, this does not tell us much about the class "people who buy books to read" as a whole, since people are known to buy books other than online.
Serious question: How is a game run from a CD any less "digital" than whatever it is you're talking about--something like "online(-only) distribution", maybe?
Some airlines in Asia will make you keep anything that looks like a phone or tablet--including your e-reader--turned off during the entire flight. China Southern is especially bad about this--last time I flew with them, they even made me turn off my old music player that I took along specifically so I could listen to music in case they wouldn't let me have my phone turned on in flight mode (like they did the previous time I took one of their flights). So I ended up using my laptop, which, as I tried to point out to the stew, *does* contain a radio transmitter. But no matter. The rules are the rules.
Excuse me? You're the one who started with the mischaracterisations, not I.
You were also the one to bring up standard of living.
As a matter of fact, I think too many people in too many Western countries, especially the US, have too many shiny toys and creature comforts. What's more, they tend to confuse their sense of entitlement to these things with the actual requirements for having a good and productive life.
I'm posting this using Firefox. Running under Linux. On a an old laptop with a Celeron processor, from the Good Old Days when a CPU was a CPU and we didn't need no steenkin' "cores"! 2GB RAM, about 1.5GB of that showing as free. 1, 2, 3,... 9, 10, 11 tabs open. No issues here.
The models failed in their predictions for recent warming, which has remained flat.
That's a false. It's based on a story that appeared in the Murdoch-owned press, and was rapidly and easily debunked, since it was based on "quotes" from an interview that were not said in that interview, as anyone who cares to watch it or read the transcript can see. Oh, and a "quote" from the UK Meteorological Service, which rapidly issued a denial.
You do realise that story's based on a report put out by The Australian.
Oh, sorry. If you've not lived in Australia, you might not not know that The Australian enjoys a bit of a reputation for heavily slanting stories, sometimes doctoring them just a bit, and occasionally just plain making shit up if it happens to go along with what Rupert Murdoch likes to hear.
If you actually check out the interview which the story claims to quote, you'll find absolutely nothing in it like what was claimed by The Australian to have been said.
BTW, The Australian also has a reputation for meddling in politics (Rupert Murdoch, go figure). Currently it's declared war on the Greens and is trying to hound them out of the political process.
"Turn to" crime? He is *already* a criminal. He was the ringleader of a conspiracy to commit ID theft and fraud, AND to attempt a coverup after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in my neighbourhood, that would be "BÖCKER---GRATIS", but thank you for the suggestion. Sometimes the obvious may not be... especially if you've been running a little short on shuteye the last couple of days.
Whereas I've not bothered with having a desktop PC for about 6 or 7 years. Laptop hardware is plenty good enough these days that I see little advantage to having a machine that I can't stick in my rucksack and costs 25% more for the same CPU/RAM.
As someone who remembers what happened after banks introduced debit cards, I expected this.
Sounds interesting.
But I'm holding out for the invention of backlit paperbacks so I can read them in bed without disturbing my gf.
You're comparing different physical media when you should be comparing delivery methods.
Amazon's numbers reflect only their own online sales. Given the venue, it's not so surprising that instant-delivery ebooks might be more popular than wait-some-days printed books.
However, this does not tell us much about the class "people who buy books to read" as a whole, since people are known to buy books other than online.
Serious question: How is a game run from a CD any less "digital" than whatever it is you're talking about--something like "online(-only) distribution", maybe?
They can't make you turn off a paperback.
Some airlines in Asia will make you keep anything that looks like a phone or tablet--including your e-reader--turned off during the entire flight. China Southern is especially bad about this--last time I flew with them, they even made me turn off my old music player that I took along specifically so I could listen to music in case they wouldn't let me have my phone turned on in flight mode (like they did the previous time I took one of their flights). So I ended up using my laptop, which, as I tried to point out to the stew, *does* contain a radio transmitter. But no matter. The rules are the rules.
I inherited several boxes of paperbacks from a former landlady who had a fondness for detective thrillers and Anaïs Nin.
Neither the local church nor the library wants them. I'd be glad to give them to Vinnie's, but the nearest one is about 15000 km distant.
I suppose I'll end up throwing them out. Even though most of them are crap, it still seems wrong to throw out books.
The original story (that was apparently in part a distortion of the Nature article), was first run in The Australian, which is a very Murdoch paper.
Excuse me? You're the one who started with the mischaracterisations, not I.
You were also the one to bring up standard of living.
As a matter of fact, I think too many people in too many Western countries, especially the US, have too many shiny toys and creature comforts. What's more, they tend to confuse their sense of entitlement to these things with the actual requirements for having a good and productive life.
That is a complete mischaracterisation.
Their mindset seems to be that we abuse many agricultural technologies, usually to the benefit of agribusinesses like Monsanto and Cargill.
Decrying the abuse or overuse of something is not the same as calling for its removal from use altogether.
I'm posting this using Firefox. Running under Linux. On a an old laptop with a Celeron processor, from the Good Old Days when a CPU was a CPU and we didn't need no steenkin' "cores"! 2GB RAM, about 1.5GB of that showing as free. 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11 tabs open. No issues here.
It's hard to take your post seriously when you don't seem to understand the difference between science and Fox News.
The models failed in their predictions for recent warming, which has remained flat.
That's a false. It's based on a story that appeared in the Murdoch-owned press, and was rapidly and easily debunked, since it was based on "quotes" from an interview that were not said in that interview, as anyone who cares to watch it or read the transcript can see. Oh, and a "quote" from the UK Meteorological Service, which rapidly issued a denial.
English is demonstrably difficult even for native speakers.
Speak for yourself.
Oh, wait, you already did:
For all of you with the exceeding strong faith in your global climate change religion, whom have felt the need to attack the facts...
Looks like you need to follow your own advice. I can recommend a couple of books on English grammar to help get you started.
You do realise that story's based on a report put out by The Australian.
Oh, sorry. If you've not lived in Australia, you might not not know that The Australian enjoys a bit of a reputation for heavily slanting stories, sometimes doctoring them just a bit, and occasionally just plain making shit up if it happens to go along with what Rupert Murdoch likes to hear.
If you actually check out the interview which the story claims to quote, you'll find absolutely nothing in it like what was claimed by The Australian to have been said.
BTW, The Australian also has a reputation for meddling in politics (Rupert Murdoch, go figure). Currently it's declared war on the Greens and is trying to hound them out of the political process.
Hmmmm....the IPCC (oh, the last two letters stand for "Climate Change") was founded in 1988.
That's true.
It's also completely irrelevant. You are attempting to conjure up a dichotomy where there is none.
So even the power companies have shills here. We should feel special, I suppose.
This sounds great until you think about the communication lines that get cut by an anchor every so often.
...and you realise that the Internet still works, and you're still able to post to Slashdot about it when it happens.
The fact that they aren't mindless fanbois of your pet technology does not make them Luddites.
I suggest you recheck your assumption that the evaporated water will return to the same locale from which it was drawn.
"Turn to" crime? He is *already* a criminal. He was the ringleader of a conspiracy to commit ID theft and fraud, AND to attempt a coverup after the fact.
Apparently the phrase "caught red-handed" means nothing to you.
I WANT to be wealthy like her...
Why?