Comment Re: PowerShell (Score 1) 215
* and ? are illegal characters in windows filenames, which prevents this. As is
And of course Windows has other idiosyncrasies. Nothing is perfect.
* and ? are illegal characters in windows filenames, which prevents this. As is
And of course Windows has other idiosyncrasies. Nothing is perfect.
frustrated by the lack of consideration of style in the medical device development process. Despite all the progress made in other areas, the devices still look more or less like a "wooden stick." Bender wants to challenge what we think is possible with prosthetics.
"Bite my shiny, metal ass!"
[sorry, someone had to say it...]
Someone called Paul McArthur does, in fact, have a bunch of patents in this area:
http://www.google.com/patents/...
https://www.google.com/search?...
if it's the same Paul McArthur, then the answer is "yes they do have a patent".
Whether you can actually build what is in the marketing or the patent is another matter entirely.
Probably only in beta...
Maybe it came already installed... sounds awfully like one that does (just buy the phone from the ad in the web page...):
Ditto, can place it to summer 1988. The VAXStations (must have been a 2000 based on the date) were very impressive (when you were used to washing-machine sized VAXen). Wasn't allowed to play with it much (at all) though.
Then it was another year of green-screens (terminals + mainframe) at college before they threw out the old mainframe and replaced with HP-UX boxes. As someone else said - Athena Widgets and TWM (in our case apparently motif was too expensive).
Installing SLS (and later Slackware) from floppies and spending hours tweaking XConfig and praying you weren't about to fry your monitor was two or three years later.
Much like Windows XP. But try telling the geniuses around here who think it's just a matter of buying everyone a new PC.
Nobody round here thinks that - here we all think it's just a matter on sticking [[insert flavour of the month Linux distro]] CD and clicking install. Because it really is that easy to rejuvenate your old XP machine, and all that software you had before has a new free replacement that you just need to learn. If there are any missing features or applications then you didn't really need them because if they were useful there would be a free software equivalent by now. Same for you old files if they won't convert.
Fact that your old XP box is probably less powerful than your phone, uses 100s (if not 1000s) of times as much power and the electric savings alone would probably pay for a replacement inside 2 or 3yrs isn't relevant, it just _must_ be the hardware upgrade cost that's the problem, and Linux fixes that... It can't possibly be that people actually rely on loads of software that runs on XP, because XP is so old and rubbish...
nobody saw Logon's Run here? Am I that old...?
You might be. I certainly am. I fondly remember the movie but didn't think the spin-off TV series was all that good.
Ditto. Of course the TV series didn't have Jenny Agutter minus clothing, which made it instantly much more forgettable...
"Hi, I am Eugene Goostman, 13yr old boy from Ukraine. I haz some networks, can I help ?"
It's in Pro edition as of Windows 8.
Frankly, useless crypto kits backdoored entire time are.
FTFY
If you want a fair comparison you need to take that 76MPG and multiply it by 2/3rd to get the rough equivalent in gas. Or if you like in Europe you can compare the carbon emissions per mile on the sticker which you will find are roughly equivalent to the gas model. The only time you see a difference is if one of the engines is advantaged by a turbo charger.
I think the Fiat 500 petrol (gas) models are actually lower CO2 than the diesel - try here: http://www.nextgreencar.com/ne...
For other manufacturers it's usually the diesels that are quite a lot lower in CO2 than their petrol equivalents. Maybe Fiat makes a good petrol engine and a lousy diesel - but I think it's more likely that diesel engines are better at larger scale, and just don't seem to work so well in very small cars.
I read an article that Microsoft got rid of the start->shutdown button to turn off your computer. This freaked people out, even though for 15 years you've been able to just hit the power button and it would turn off properly.
Yeah, but isn't it idiotic that to stop everything and shut down your computer, you clicked on "Start"?
Yep. In fact almost to decades ago when the start menu arrived (with Win 95 I think) that was major complaint - "how do I shut down, start ?, but that's the last place you'd look to shut down". Personally, from a Unix background, I thought it was perfectly reasonable to "start" a "shutdown", but hey - the majority seemed to think that the file menu of program manager was the logical place...
Now everyone's complaining that they took it away from "start" and put it under "power" on the settings menu.
Some things don't change - "people don't like change" is one.
Variables don't; constants aren't.