russia has more "land" than any country in the world, they don't need and want more
They have been having decreases in their ability to grow food, so yes they absolutely want Ukraine. You really think people around here know dick.
I have overly expensive cable internet already, I don't need to also pay for CATV.
Looks good, but I can't find the app in my TV's store so it's a complete non-starter.
I got a Google TV because I knew it would have the best app support. Looks like you didn't.
My desktop TV-used-as-Monitor has stupid LG WebOS, but I also don't need a TV-specific app since my desktop is connected to it and I don't connect the TV to the network, only HDMI.
Most iPhone owners didn't buy them outright. They got them "free" with their plan.
That's still buying them. They just are on a "payment plan".
Most iPhone owners didn't buy them outright.
World trade was headed to destruction. Now it's just heading there a bit quicker.
Because that will not pacify the poor. Printing money constantly will cause monetary inflation, so only the rich will be able to buy anything of significant value like homes. You'd have to also give away housing. It makes much more sense just to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor, the rich will end up with it again anyway.
It's not wrong to say that America is largely at fault. We got Ukraine to give up nukes in exchange for vague and non-binding promises that we would protect them from Russia. Obviously this is a deal they should not have taken, but it was our sleazy idea.
I buy from AliExpress all the time. (Same business, different storefront.) As a rule they are roughly as responsive as Amazon. Shipping takes longer but prices are much better. Pretty much all the cheap crap on Amazon comes from them and it's much cheaper from the source. So far they have processed all of my complaints gracefully.
I agree that's the main problem in this context, but there are other large ones of course. The nuclear isn't just a problem in construction, it's also a problem in maintenance, and in decommissioning. Nuclear is also not cheaper than fossil fuels if you consider full lifecycle costs of operation. You might say it's cheaper because it's possible to contain the waste and that's not possible for fossil fuels, but fossil fuels shouldn't actually even be in the running.
maybe something good could accidentally come from it?
Only if the money slated for nuclear is diverted to sources which make sense like wind and solar, which even when paired with batteries are now cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear.
That assumes that such a plan can exist. Why do you assume that it does?
I don't, and you don't understand the argument. Their business plan is simply not viable and they should fuck off and someone with a viable business plan should use the space they were wasting.
It's dangerous to go alone. Take this.
That's interesting to know. I never spent a lot of time with NeXTStep, though I have played with it a little bit. I think I have a VM for an x86 version around here somewhere, but it was a little crashy in a way that the 68k machines weren't and I don't know which piece's fault that is. I spent more time with OS X, but not a whole lot, so I didn't get that far into it.
As long as some little bitch keeps modding down my factual posts
All the extraneous bullshit Microsoft added to the start menu is always lurking in memory for performance reasons.
FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin
