Is it as large as this one?
Hermosos diseños de tarjetas de matrimonio y para toda ocasión. Todo en invitaciones de Bodas ( http://oxeclassic.blogspot.com)
Probably the people in the watch list overlap quite heaviliy in terms of their contacts, but I would expect the the 3-hops rule covers 50% of the population of the USA, if not more.
Facebook says most people really only associate with 30 'friends'.
Do you really think, at this point, that the NSA takes a minimalist view of what constitutes an association? If so, I have a bridge to sell you!
Funny I have always felt the same way as you about Windows. Quite often while working with windows, often just trying to make it useable for me, I feel like I'm wasting precious time. Then I got back to my comfortable desktop and feel a lot better.
I have used linux for many years but I don't follow what are rambling on about with installing wine. I install it with aptitude install wine and things are just fine. The handy winetools script installs a bunch of things and it works for the one or two apps that I run with it occasionally. On one box I install from the latest git code just to see how things are progressing. But if you're having trouble building from source, then this route is not for you (on any OS).
Funny about how you keep dvds and hard drives full of msi's and exes and drivers! For me I just keep a copy of my home directory. Everything else I can install from a net install of Mint or some other distro, and just about everything I use daily is in the repos. Linux hardware support seems quite good to me these days. Even Nvidia's driver is in repos. It's a different paradigm is all. To me the command line is no different than navigating the depths of the registry on windows.
The Curiosity rover has tasted Mars' air: It's made mostly of carbon dioxide with hints of other gases. The measurements by the most advanced spacecraft to land on the red planet closely match what the twin Viking landers detected in the late 1970s and what...
Mars Rover Curiosity Rolls Past Mileage MilestoneSpace.com
Scientists Reveal Strongest Evidence of Ancient Ocean in Mars; A Third of the
Mars 2020 Rover To Use Curiosity FrameworkAutomation World
KOAA.com Colorado Springs and Pueblo News-RedOrbit-Huffington Post
all 72 news articles
Meh, I'm fine with the term "pro-life" although I suspect some would have issue with when exactly "life" of a human and self awareness begins. I understand that some people are rabid that life should be protected no matter what and am okay with it - so long as they're not pushing these views onto others. If a woman decides to have a medical procedure it's not my business to tell them not to. I will admit to being uncomfortable with late term procedures but I'm not going to advocate barring them. Anti-life however is a term that actively advocates killing rather than choice and I don't agree with it, it paints an incomplete picture to say the least. We can likely agree that no term is neutral nor is it desired when we have the press looking to stir any controversy they can to bump revenue....
Thanks for your thanks. It really means a lot. 11 more days till I get my first on the record answer from Google... I so hope they just admit I was right all along. But if they don't, you and the dozen or two others I've had see my point along the way will definitely make me feel a little less insane. It means a lot. Time will tell...
And remember it's Reagan's cult following that keeps digging him up, wanting to put his corpse on the ballot. I would rather send him and everything about him to the planet core, or better, into the sun. We need to purge everything about him, except as a reminder of the things not to do or how to be.
I'd rather we dig him up one last time and ship his otherwise useless corpse to a biofuel power station in order to recover some of the added utility costs he demanded the US taxpayers cover, due to his insistence that the already-installed solar panels weren't good enough to provide energy to his holy majesty's White House — nope, the millionaire Hollywood prima donna demanded a handout from the US taxpayer, but for America's neediest: "Let 'em eat curb."
Reaganomics, Chapter One.
Link to Original Source
Asteroids which come near Earth are Planetary Resources' focus. They hope to capture one and exploit its minerals. That is an easy mission: catch what comes to you. Some of these Near Earth Asteroids still contain some captured water content, but an asteroid that has frequented Earth's orbit for a long time will not have them in great pure degree because those boil off - so a great deal of energy and technology must be spent to convert fractions of rock to water. Far more than would be spent to just go out to Ceres and get the water that lays on the ground in the measure of 200 quadrillion metric tons. The crust of Ceres will of course have the remains of all the platinum group metals that Near Earth Asteroids will since it is the queen of the Asteroid belt and has gathered a coating of asteroids for the last few billion years. On the surface of Ceres iron is more common even than silicon, and uranium is abundant.
In a few months NASA Dawn mission will image Ceres, and the commercial space race will begin in earnest. Ceres is a really, really big deal that changes everything we thought we knew about resources in space. Also: I wouldn't put long money in gold, silver, platinum and other such metals now. Those have been my faves, but not now.
1. Reach out to your contacts, contacts from a few years ago, older journalists from a few years ago who had many journalists friends with quality tech contacts.
1.5 Offer to share the fame.
1.6 Read up on US secretly collecting two months of press telephone records.
2. 99.98% of calls might end with a click.
3. Wait for the few calls where people that just have to bully, argue, threaten for 5-100 mins.
4. Let ex staff vent with filled ample justification rants guide you.
5. Reality of press telephone records finds you.
There is no infrastructure currently to support what you are talking about much less ten years ago.
I call pure B.S. There are many ISPs that allow residential users to run servers. You're B.S. is so exceptionally transparent, I can quote an anonymous leak of Google's CEO and CFO that show precisely that there is no technical lack of supporting infrastructure-
(score 5 unrefuted Anonymous Coward leak post of Larry Page and Patrick Prichett (CEO and CFO of Google))
Most businesses don't have servers and switching and storage. They use ISPs and data centers.
OK, so what, don't care. You are like one of those people for jailing flag burners who don't get that allowing people to burn flags without going to jail doesn't mean *you* will be forced to burn your flag. Businesses that want servers and switching and storage will buy them, businesses that want to outsource that infrastructure will still be more than free to do so. non-issue.
Most individuals certainly don't have this stuff.
That's not really true, but again, wouldn't matter much if it were. Most individuals probably do have a 10 year old PC they aren't using for anything else, and could easily run linux on it, *if they wanted to*. But nobody will be forcing them to. Just an option.
Economies of scale are what makes it all affordable. This means you have to store data offsite and run your apps offsite.
No, it really doesn't. What it means is that in *some* cases it makes business sense to store your data offsite and run your apps offisite. In other cases, the opposite.
If it isn't Google it's Rackspace or Amazon web services or your local collocation hub sitting near a T3 backbone.
Or your servers in your residence- *if you choose* (and if the terms of service or FCC interpretation of network neutrality allow it)
You are deluded to think that it can be different even in a future where servers are cheap and bandwidth is fast.
I hope you are just trolling and aren't so stupid as to actually believe that. A raspberri pi already can do many interesting things as a server (cheap already), and bandwidth is already fast, compared to 10 years ago (when slashdot.org and other websites were already doing very interesting things with many thousands of users, and a rather paltry amount of bandwidth used by today's standards. I just want to be able to do the same at home now that costs for servers and bandwidth have come down.
Centrally managed by dedicated support staff will always win out over anything else in 80% of the use cases.
And even if you are exactly right, you have still made my point. That 20% is where I want to be. I think Network Neutrality entitles me the opportunity to compete in that 20% of the market. Bruce Schneier seems to agree (Thanked me) with me and wishes me Good Luck with my complaint.
Right To Serve -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993
Sorry, you've completely lost me as I see nothing to connect pimps with those who feel women should have a choice concerning pregnancy. Wake me when the folks who want right to choose force woman to do anything.
Existe la creencia arraigada sobre que la artritis solo afecta a los viejos, esta enfermedad también la padecen muchos jóvenes y adultos con mediana edad. La artritis disminuye la calidad de vida, y por lo tanto mucha gente se pregunta como aliviar los dolores de artritis.
Si te preguntas como ( http://curarartritis.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/como-aliviar-los-dolores-de-artritis/)
Your meme is broken.
No, good point but also don't sell sophisticated weaponry to an ally that's unstable...
Carter entered office in 1977 with pledges to "moralize" U.S. arms
sales, saying that the U.S. should not be "the first supplier to
introduce into a region newly developed advanced weapon systems which
could create a new or significantly higher combat capability." At the
same time, Carter continued his predecessors' policies of approving
large weapons sales to Iran. In fact, the arms sales to Iran appear
to have accelerated under Carter. Total U.S. arms sales to Iran for
the Nixon/Ford term of 1972-76 were $10.4 billion. During the Carter
administration and "before the Shah fled the country on January 16,
1979 he had placed orders with US contractors for an additional $12.2
billion of military hardware, with deliveries to be spread over the
following three years.
Like his predecessors, Carter was willing to overlook the shah's violations of human rights. To demonstrate American support, Carter visited Iran in late December 1977. He applauded Iran as "an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world" and praised the shah as a great leader who had won "the respect and the admiration and love" of his people.
The shah was indeed popular among wealthy Iranians, but in the slums of Teheran and in rural, poverty?stricken villages, there was little respect, admiration, or love for his regime. Led by a fundamentalist Islamic clergy and emboldened by want, the masses of Iranians turned against the shah and his westernization policies. In the early fall of 1978 the revolutionary surge in Iran gained force. The shah, who had once seemed so powerful and secure, was paralyzed by indecision, alternating between ruthless suppression and attempts to liberalize his regime. In Washington, Carter also vacillated, uncertain whether to stand firmly behind the shah or to cut his losses and prepare to deal with a new government in Iran.
In January 1979, the shah fled to Egypt. Exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini returned to Iran, preaching the doctrine that the United States was the "Great Satan" behind the shah. Relations between the United States and the new Iranian government were terrible, but Iranian officials warned that they would become infinitely worse if the shah were granted asylum. Nevertheless, Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for treatment of lymphoma. The reaction in Iran was severe.
On November 4, 1979, Iranian supporters of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Teheran and captured 66 Americans, 13 of whom were freed several weeks later. The rest were held hostage for 444 days and were the objects of intense political interest and media coverage.
Carter was helpless. Because Iran was not a stable country in any recognizable sense, its government was not susceptible to pressure. Iran's demands--the return of the shah to Iran and admission of U.S. guilt in supporting the shah--were unacceptable. Carter devoted far too much attention to the almost insoluble problem. The hostages stayed in the public spotlight in part because Carter kept them there.
We should have stopped supporting the Shaw a long time before he was finally kicked out. It's been the same story with every repressive regime we've ever had ties to. For whatever politically expedient object we were after, we've created deep rooted animosity. We're not alone and we followed the model other nations had done.
Our nation has had many leaders but not all of them have had a chance to distinguish themselves beyond life in public office. Lincoln won the Civil War and freed the slaves. Washington fought valiantly against the British. Roosevelt saw us through the Depression and World War II. Jimmy Carter could have had a much more positive influence on his own historical perspective if he'd just stood up and be a leader. He wasn't at that time. He now does humanitarian work and I applaud that but let's not gloss over the fact that he was a bumbling dumbfuck while in office.
How do you think the government got these companies to sign these agreements in the first place?
They were given contracts or their existing contracts were threatened if they didn't sign.
Now that its out in the open their conventional customers are threatening to stop buying their products which would spell doom for most of those companies.
Its about money. And when push comes to shove, the government can't afford to replace the private sector customer's lost with government bids. And that the deal is likely going to undergo some strain as the tech companies make it painfully clear that they're not happy with the deal.
What I was trying to express was that almost every comment in this thread has an essential assumption that laws form a logical system, and can be determined to be either 'correct' or 'incorrect'. And it ain't that way. Even if it could, it would not be able to cover all the possible circumstances. (I would have used 'cases' but for the duplicity of meaning.) In that sense, your comment is not one of the more problematic ones - as noted, it's closer to what we have in practice, if I understand your meaning (your comment is a bit confusing to me).
A big part of the explosion of laws and regulations is due to the continuing effort to expand and refine them to cover every possible circumstance, which (as I was trying to express) is impossible. So we continue to chop the logic finer and finer, but in the process we actually create more ways for the real world to not quite fit the law. Every refinement and branch creates more end points from which eventually branches will be needed, and human activity will be further proscribed, channeled and constrained.