Depends on your definition of harm. The money the people had to spend doesn't disappear- it gets spent in other ways. Many of those other ways will be local businesses, which will improve the local economy. The long term effect may be positive. Especially with software that can just be pirated.
Star Trek: The Next Generation was generally well-done, with interesting charcerters and only a few clunker episodes.
I found Deep Space 9 an interesting concept let down by unimaginative writing.
I found Voyager unwatchable. Janeway came across as an affirmative action bureaucrat. A Captain is a monarch, not a bureaucrat. Patrick Stewart had played Shakespearean kings, and played Picard the same way. It worked. What Janeway needed was a good desk.
Sliders was a really interesting premise that ran out of steam. The same story every week. Yawn.
The X Files also started out well and also ran out of steam, descending in to torture porn.
Didn't watch any of the others, so no comment.
I don't understand the point of buying a non-Google Android device.
I've looked at them, and I just never saw anything that made me think "that's clearly so much better and cheaper than the Google device that I should be reliant on the manufacturer and carrier to support it."
When my Nexus 4 went tits up I bought a Moto G 2014. It's got an SD slot, it's got KitKat (now) and it's unlockable/rootable. Indeed, unlocked and rooted. It was under $200 with a ringke slim backing added, from Amazon. That was pretty compelling. I miss the GB of RAM but nothing else.
And there's no "grown-up" alternative. Back in the day you didn't run Windows 95 - ME at the office. You used NT.
Ah, but what about that long period of running WfW at the office, except on servers and maybe CAD workstations and the like?
It's too slow to be useful
and will utterly kill network drives.
Seems like Microsoft can address this one of two ways. One, just don't do it to network drives, the OS knows which those are. Two, by now they ought to have been able to implement this in SMB or whatever it is called now, where the client just asks the server for the size of the directory so it doesn't have to do all the calls manually. The server can prioritize that stuff last.
Windows Server has long been the way to get the expert's version of NT. On occasion, though, it has had DirectX compatibility issues.
Are you aware that BMW and Mercedes reliability has gone into the toilet since the 1980s? I hear most Porsches that don't catch on fire spontaneously are pretty reliable, though.
A modern smart phone can barely compete with a desktop PC from 2000 (CPU wise anyway, smartphones do have much better GPU's).
Gee, is that all? I remember doing quite a lot on my desktop in 2000.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1GHz Pentium 3 could beat a dual core 2GHz ARM CPU. Sure the P3 would be chewing 30W and the ARM only 6.
I'm betting it would depend on which benchmark you were running.
So you were impressed with Scaled Composites marketing video?
Did you rush out to buy a Power Glove after watching the Wizard?
However DS9 came out only a few weeks earlier.
So you insult the guy who used science to invent stuff that is practical and has in general enhanced our lives.
While you fully support a guy who had difficulty making a device that can be used.
Now don't get me wrong, I look up to Tesla as the better scientist. But Edison had the vision to use science to solve problems. Yes He made money from it. But I wouldn't say he is a sell out, he started inventing stuff as a way to make money.
I don't care what they call it. But I just want the ability to drill down to find my feature.
The Windows 8 Interface, and Office 2007+ Ribbons with its tiles, kills the drill down idea, and gives you a big set of data cluttered in your face.
I am all for a spot for shortcuts and links, where you can put the most used features right at your beck and call. But being the case I use 20% of the features 80% of the time, means I much rather have most of the stuff shoved away from my site, until I need them, and I can use common sense to find out where they are.
One or two shots to a subject wearing body armor is typically enough to incapacitate them. That second shot can even be fatal, depending on the armor, the round, and the shot placement. Armor is there to prevent penetration and dissipate as much of the bullet's energy as possible. However, that first shot is going to do enough damage to leave at least a good amount (if not a ridiculous amount) of bruising around the impact zone. At that point, the body armor is compromised (not useless, but no longer fully capable). Another shot will do anything from leave a lot more bruising to fully penetrate. The most likely case is where you'll start getting ribs cracked. All subsequent shots increase the damage to the subject and each carries a rapidly increasing risk of penetration of the armor and death for the subject. Even without penetration of the armor, the human body can only handle so much kinetic energy.
In any event, it would be uncommon for an individual who's taken two shots to the chest to be combat effective. More commonly, they'd be lying on the ground in a lot of pain. Considering how many attempts it takes to get a shot on target for the head versus the center of mass, you're vastly better off going for the center of mass even if you know for a fact that your target is wearing armor. And before you bring up the North Hollywood shootout, understand that there were a number of factors that allowed those guys to carry on during the shootout, not the least of which was the poor accuracy of the firearms available to the police on scene at the range at which they were forced to engage.
It's unfortunate that the man you knew died while trying to stop a courthouse shooter. However, that one incident doesn't change the fact that the odds vastly favor center of mass targeting. Getting headshots on a paper target at a fixed distance and height, with no motion whatsoever, in an unstressful situation isn't that challenging. Getting them on a real human head at variable heights and distances, full range of motion, non-targets in the way and behind the target, in the most stressful situation you'll ever face (where millions of years of human evolution are working against you to destroy your vision, higher reasoning, etc) is one of those things best left to Delta operators who train on that day-in and day-out for years and years on end. And I'll bet if you talk to those guys, they'll also tell you that a center of mass shot is the perfect starting point as you'll get a hit faster and cut down on the motion that makes the head shot nigh impossible.
There is strong encryption, and there is unbreakable encryption. They are not necessarily the same thing.
Strong encryption is theoretically breakable, but it is not computationally feasible to do so. What is computationally feasible changes with time. Look at how key-length standards for RSA have changed, for example.
One-time pad encryption, on the other hand, is not breakable. It doesn't matter how much computer power you throw at it: if you don't have the key, you can't read the message.
If you are to open an other flame war. DS9 was a Ripoff of Babylon 5.
Based on a space station.
Captain is/becomes a religious figure.
Super Intelligent aliens are influencing the whole plot.
Becomes part of some great war.
As for STTING getting move votes then DS9, is the fact it was episodic, so the people who were not diehard fans could watch a show, and not have a fit if they missed the next one.