In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run..
Unfortunately the UK is a good (bad) example of government appeasing media as in Daily Mail hysteria campaigns. Media is corporation control of the masses
Killing people is illegal, and that in most of the world "but they started it first" is NOT a valid excuse?
Also, gun license from one country is just a piece of paper in another. And most countries don't allow civilians to own automatic weapons.
You seem to forget that all these laws are only applicable to the land and the coastal waters around it
The majority of these piracy attacks happen in international waters
It wasn't quite as you say - remember, young Roland was in possession of the horn in the reset that occurs at the end of the final book. It gives the reader hope that the outcome may be different on the subsequent attempt.
I appreciated that detail, but I realize I'm one of a tiny minority of fans that liked the ending.
After reading the ending I would have loved to be able to re-read the story there and then and see what changes due to Roland having the horn this time round
for something like the dark tower, we want week old road kill roasted over an oil drum fire by a paranoid schizophrenic hobo. we don't want olive garden
Amazing description and, to my mind, fits perfectly
logging you in to your Google account
That's one reason not to use Chrome. I don't have a Google account, and I don't want a Google account.
Not only that but the choice of Chrome... made by a money making company that wants to know everything about your web surfing habits to "serve you better adverts", or Firefox... made by an open source company which is not interested in serving adverts etc. makes it simple to stay with Firefox
You cannot dive 2000+m all the way in water because the pressure will be ~200 times atmosphere and you will be crushed.
You don't get crushed by the pressure as your body is mainly water/fluids and the air spaces you have are equalised whilst you are breathing.,
The reason for not being able (yet) to dive to these depths is the fact that even with extreme technical diving gas mixes the air becomes toxic well before these depths. The O2 in normal air "approx 21%" starts to become dangerous at depths below 60m with a rapidly increasing risk of central nervous system toxicity leading to convulsions, blackouts and drowning. This is why technical divers have to change gas mixes as they go deeper with each mix having a much lower % of O2. That's without even taking into account the problems of removing the massive amounts of Nitrogen absorbed by the body and the problems that the Helium added to replace the O2 gives to the body as well.
The current depth record of open circuit diving is around 300m and even that still included over 9 hours of stops on the ascent to off-gas safely.
I know this is against Slashdot rules, but maybe you should read at least the summary before posting and then you might notice that the entire post is about being able to ADD software to your phone. The news about being able to remove software was some time ago.
As in having an outside company not the user adding apps etc.
It's one thing to remove software/info/data from a users phone, but to be able to just add any software/info/data to a users phone is a totally different concept.
How does an off-topic reply that misses the point of the topic totally get modded "interesting" ?
Blacksmith is still a viable industry (ok not as much as it was in "olden times") but the blacksmith I used to work at has expanded and had to open a second workshop in the nearby town to keep up with business. It's not just making horseshoes these days.
First one works for me too.
That's what I thought at first then I realised the first one is from 2004 about a man and a drinking binge. Whilst the second one is from 2002 about a Fascist future where all forms of feeling are illegal, and a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system and happens to be the correct film.
Download caps, speed limits, a flat out limit on the number of files you can download. It wouldn't be the first time an ISP has promised something that's not quite the truth.
You hit the nail on the head there. I'm with Virgin (lack of any choice) and their service is so throttled that trying to use even a fraction of the bandwidth I've paid for results in my connection speed (both up and down-stream) being restricted by 75% for the rest of the day. From 3pm - midnight there is a 400 mb max limit before being throttled and this is on a 10 meg connection, 10 am to 3pm allowed 1Gb download then 75% throttled. Just downloading the Medal of Honour AA patch (1.3Gb) finished my connection for the day, so much for legitimate digital downloads of games(Sacred 2 - 13GB), films etc.
All this is going to do is slow your connection down to a complete crawl. It's going to take ages to download anything other that a few albums a day, unless you restrict your downloading to the middle of the night.
Virgin claim as ever that this is not due to over-selling of available bandwidth. They are more than happy to take your money for fast connection as long as you don't use it for anything more than browsing a static web page.
The public might be footing the bill for the BBC over here, but there is no option as to whether to pay or not while watching any tv.
Lots of things are taxed. If you don't like it, do without. Or leave.
I don't mind paying tax for something that I use. What I really object to is the fact that BBC demand people pay them even if they never watch/use the BBC. Why should I pay the BBC to be able to watch ITV/channel 4 which are both funded by adverts, or Sky which is paid for by adverts and subscriptions and none of them receive any money from the BBC. Before you ask, no I don't pay for the license for this very reason.
The BBC has to worry less about pleasing its corporate masters and more about serving the public, since it's the public that's footing the bill. It's essentially the same principle that keeps Consumer Reports and public radio a cut above the rest
The public might be footing the bill for the BBC over here, but there is no option as to whether to pay or not while watching any tv. As even if you only watch the advert funded independent channels and never watch a single moment of BBC you by law still have to pay the BBC £130 a year for the pleasure of not watching any BBC. The only way of not paying a TV license is to only use your TV to watch dvds, play games, etc and to have no means of picking up any tv channels on the TV.
This is something that has always really bugged me that if I want to watch Sky I have to still pay the BBC for doing it.
What can justify the cost and performance hit of Windows 7? Yes, it is faster than Vista but it isn't faster than XP.
Last time I checked, all games support Windows XP. Also, why on earth would someone want to BUY an OS without it being bought/bundled with a new PC?
What features are there that are "must have" apart from the "ooh shiny" aspect?
That's not to mention the inevitable problems of early adoption...
How about being able to use all of the ram instead of being limited to only 3gb and also being able to use the 64 bit processor instead of being stuck with only a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit pc. Both of these situations mean that Windows 7 is actually faster than XP in some situations as being able to use all the memory and processor power not just part of it
Just 2 thoughts that come to mind straight away.
Shame XP64 never got fully completed. Still if it had then I guess Vista would have had even more problems getting any users.