I've found that there are really no issues with regards to running a new OS for long periods of time. There was a time when regular reinstalls were a part of my regimen but that is long past. I reinstall only when there's a specific need. That doesn't mean I just put up with a slow computer either, I demand very fast performance from my systems. A reinstall just isn't needed to maintain that.

Likewise, components have gotten much better, and upgrades more incremental, so I've found the need to buy new hardware that would necessitate a reinstall to be less.

My guess? This person either has crap on their system that causes issues, or this is just a "magic incantation" they've always done for supposedly better performance without understanding or examination.

Maybe you're just from somewhere other than Europe, where a rabbit in the moon is the more common image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

I'm surprised to learn that the other parts of guns aren't also tracked with issued serial numbers. Heck, if you were to use matching numbers, it would create a secondary market for higher-valued all-original guns, based on what happens in the automobile enthusiast circles.

Nope. Pluto's designation is based on it's size, mostly. The category "planet", like all categories, is made by humans to conveniently describe the universe to ourselves, and the precise boundaries are constrained (but not determined) by how the universe actually is and how we actually are. Within those constraints we can put the boundary where we like, and in the case of planets, smaller bodies that don't dominate their gravitational neighbourhood have been deemed to fall outside the human-created category we use the word "planet" to label.

Quasi-moons are bodies in solar orbits that have interacted with their quasi-primary such that they are "station keeping" with it. A body like this one will wander around in the general vicinity of Earth as both Earth and quasi-moon travel around the sun together. So from the perspective of an observer on Earth, the quasi-moon executes periodic but non-orbital motion: it wanders in a closed configuration that does not describe a path that goes around the Earth.

This is, like many such distinctions, fairly arbitrary: the sun's gravity at the orbit of the Moon is a good deal stronger than the Earth's gravity at the orbit of the Moon, so one could describe the Moon as being in orbit about the sun, with it's orbit perturbed into a wobble by the nearby Earth. That is, from an outside observer's perspective, the Moon's motion is never retrograde with respect to it's mutual orbit with Earth around the sun.

Consider the view:

O o .

where the O is the sun, the o is the Earth and the . is the Moon. In the configuration shown (with the Moon on the outer wobble of its orbit about the Sun) it is moving faster than average (imagine the Earth and Moon both rotation clockwise around the Sun, and the Moon moving clock-wise around the Earth, so when in the image above it is moving "down" on the page).

But in the situation that obtains two weeks later:

O . o

where the Moon on the inner wobble of its orbit about the Sun, it is still moving "down" on the page relative to the Sun even though it is moving "up" on the page from the perspective of an observer on Earth.

Another way to see this is to consider that the Moon executes a wobble like this once a month, traveling 2*pi*0.25 million miles (lunar orbit is about 250 thousand miles), but at the same time moves 2*pi*96/12 million miles in its orbit around the Sun (which is 96 million miles from Earth), and since 96/12 > 0.25 it should be clear that the Moon's orbital velocity around the Sun is higher than it's orbital velocity around the Earth. Ergo: no retrograde motion for the Moon!

All of this is a very long-winded way of saying: how we classify Moons vs quasi-moons is useful, but--as with all the ways we as knowing subjects classify the objectively real universe we live in--somewhat arbitrary. We could--but don't, so far as I know--have a name for the class of moon-like objects that have orbital velocities around their primary that are greater than their orbital velocity around their primary's primary (most Earth-orbiting satellites fall into this category.) Instead, we have a name for objects that don't execute motions relative to their (quasi-)primary that look like a loop around it from the perspective of an observer on the primary's surface.

So they are the same as the 2nd Amendment, yes?

Let's be clear about this: widespread gun ownership in the US is held to be useful for two purposes:

1) empowering the people to overthrow a tyrannical government

2) personal protection.

The second of these is overwhelmingly what the gun lobby focuses on when selling guns to their "patriotic American" base.

The problem is: widespread firearms ownership is demonstrably, empirically, a terrible solution to the problem of personal protection. Firearms for personal protection--specifically handguns--are vastly more widespread in the US than in any other developed nation. The murder rate in the US is vastly higher than any other developed nation.

So anyone looking at the data would have to say that widespread handgun ownership is "a feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing". Anything else would be simply bizarre, a complete rejection of the data. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate).

Please note: I am not arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect American's right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, AR-15s, etc. I am arguing--pointing out, really--that a very significant proportion of advertising, promotion and rhetoric around gun ownership in the US is aimed at exactly the kind of feel-good emotionalism that gun owners frequently complain about with regard to people who promote solutions to the problem of personal protection that have actually worked everywhere else in the developed world.

The 2nd Amendment and other features of the uniquely broken American political system prevents those solutions--gun control and the rule of law--from being applied in the US, but to pretend that is anything other than a tragedy that is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents every year is laughable.

Better solutions than guns exist to the problem of personal protection. Only in America are those solutions incapable of being implemented.

Pong: The future is in your hands.
A cross genre action-scifi-romcom with human drama and real meaning.

-

Everyone should just go and learn C and how to do POSIX programming, attain enough mastery in it to be able to diagnose code for obscure security issues (that have eluded many programmers for years) and then design a secure fix.

And they should do that in a day.

Ya that sounds reasonable.

FYI not only are most people not programmers, and have no interest in becoming programmers, but most lack the kind of brain it takes to be a good programmer. The whole "Oh it is OSS fix it yourself!" argument is a really stupid one.

You are suggesting that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong. You are trying to dismiss them on the irrational basis that they all point in the same direction by slightly different amounts.

Furthermore you are assuming that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong in the same direction, imposing your pre-determined bias upon them.

You are baselessly filtering out any satellite data that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are baselessly filtering out ocean temperatures, which account for 90% of climate heating, because it doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are engaging in wild conspiracy-theoryism claiming (or implying) that some hundredthousand scientists are ALL too stupid to account for novice-level obvious measurement difficulties, or that they are ALL conspiring to deliberately lie.

And most of all you're denying THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
CO2 lets sunlight in and blocks the escape of thermal radiation. There is no possible dispute there. End of argument. The science is utterly and unarguably settled. All that's left at that point is determining the size of the effect.

It's astounding that it somehow doesn't make it into your conscious awareness that you are baselessly ignoring anything and everything that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

-

If you set foot in a country, they can arrest you for violating their laws. Doesn't matter if you aren't a citizen and live overseas. If you come there, they can arrest you. So let's say you regularly trash Islam and the Ayatollah and are well known for this. Then you travel to Iran. They very well can arrest you for that. They can't do much if you don't go there but if you show up, they can grab you.

Now in terms of if this particular arrest is legit for the American legal system, almost certainly. Doesn't matter that he was living in a foreign country. If he sold something that is illegal to Americans and using American services, he broke American law. Doesn't matter if he wasn't in America at the time, you don't have to be in a country to break their law. Let me give you a couple examples of how one can easily break a country's law from another country:

1) Ordering someone murdered. Let's say you have yourself a little gang with members in a few countries. You don't like someone over in Sweden so you order one of your Swedish members to murder them. That person broke Swedish law, but so did you. Doesn't matter you weren't there, you orchestrated a murder, that's illegal, and if they can get their hands on you you'll stand trial for it (the US would happily extradite you for that).

2) You set up a gun smuggling business for Canadians. You go and buy guns that are legal in the US, but illegal in Canada. You have them smuggled up and warehoused there, and then sell them to Canadians. You've broken Canadian law. Even if you are operating everything out of the US, what you are doing isn't legal in Canada and that's where it is being done. You house the guns in Canada and sell them to Canadians, that makes it a Canadian issue (you'd get extradited for that too).

So if this dude is selling his shit from AWS, to Americans, the courts will have no problems with the claim that American law applies.

Intent matters in the law. There are things that can be legal or illegal depending on the intent behind it. This can apply to tools as well as actions. If you sell a tool for legitimate uses, you are generally fine even if the tool has some illegitimate uses too. So long as your actions, as in marketing and such, show that you intend it for legit uses, you are fine.

A good example would be all the fine burglary tools for sale at Home Depot. A large number of the tools they sell would work very well for breaking in to houses or cars. However it is very clear that isn't why they sell them, nor why 99.99% of their customers buy them. Not only do the tools have a substantial legitimate use, but that it what all their marketing is about. They don't try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you could drill open most locks, they try to convince you that you need a hammer drill because you want to put up shelves in concrete or the like. They intend their tools to be used for legitimate activities.

The more shady the product, the more careful you'd better be about how you sell it because the easier it could show intent to have it used for criminal purposes. If it looks like you are just paying lip service to legit uses but really trying to sell your stuff for illegal uses, you are likely to get in trouble.

It doesn't really matter how the accounting is done, utilities are going to have to charge more for power as they sell less of it, because their fixed costs are such a large proportion of their total costs. Fixed costs account for anywhere from 75 to 100% of plant costs: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/c... (the data in table 1 appear to mean "fuel cost" when they say "variable cost").

The utilities model is based on the notion that you can recover your capital costs (and more) over the lifetime of the plant. The rapid rise of solar in particular is putting that at risk, and utilities are caught between a rock and a hard place. They can fight by keeping power costs low, and lose, or they can fight by raising their power costs--however they want to do the accounting--and also lose.

Personally, I hope they raise the costs. It will make low-carbon alternatives like wind and solar more attractive.

Or the false.

Personally, I glanced at a Gladwell book once and just immediately knew, in the blink of an eye as it were, that it was pablum for the toothless mind.