Usually, I'd agree with you. In this case the laptop is a bit of a Frankenstein model. The CPU is an engineering sample of an AMD A-10, and the BIOS is missing details of serial numbers, etc. Makes for an odd boot, but it was cheap and does what I want. I've also replaced the stock RAM, drive, wireless, BlueTooth and everything else that could be replaced.
The reboot thing is new and I suspect it has something to do with the boot loader. I expect to be able to fix it.
The Wifi I'll have to investigate. I have some leads, but should be able to fix it.
If it were an off-the-shelf model I'd agree with you, but because of what I've done to it I am a bit more tolerant.
No, it works fine for me using the keyboard function keys.
So have I, but it depends on the video drivers.
Under the FOSS drivers on both AMD and nVidia I can play the video fine, but if I move the mouse into the window, it lags.
With the proprietary drivers this doesn't happen.
I installed in on my HP ProBook 6475b laptop the other day and have only run into some minor issues.
1. I opted for full disk encrypted LVM. It didn't ask for a separate Swap partition password, instead using the main one. Fine. However, when booting, I have to enter it twice -- once for the main partition, once for swap. [Bug reported and acknowledged]
2. It hangs on reboot. I have to boot twice every time to get it to get past the boot loader. I've tried "shut down", then letting it sit for 10 minutes. Next boot -- hang and I reboot and then it works.
3. My wifi doesn't come back after suspend. I think it has to do with the particular laptop firmware, because it does this with every distro I've tried. Everything else works, but the wifi never makes it out of suspend.
The rest works fine. Changing to the proprietary AMD video drivers was a snap, and it sped up video playback to what I would expect (no stuttering on HD).
The mismanagement reports of the 1990s and 2000s existed when the OHA voted in favor of this project in 2009. The size and scope of the telescope hasn't changed since then.
What is different? Why was this acceptable to them in 2009 but not 2015?
Good. Now we've gone from "they're all scum" to "some of them (possibly including Rand Paul") are good and trying but the Repubican machine and its operators will block them."
At this point we're mostly on the same page.
Ron Paul is clearly one of those good guys. And the Neocons controlling the R party machine (one of the four major factions) steamrollered him and his supporters (sometimes violently), and changed the rules to make it even harder for a grass roots uprising to displace them.
Two debates are going on right now. One is between working through the R party (is it salvagable?) or coming in with a "third" party - either an existing one or a new one (is that doable or do the big two have too much of a lock?)
The other is whether Rand is a sellout to the Neocons or if he's just more savvy than his dad and trying to look non-threatening to them in order to get the nomination. Andrew Napolitano, who knows him personally, says he knows him to be a genuine liberty advocate, and I trust A. N. on this subject.
If nobody knows how it works, how did the guy invent it?
LOTS of stuff gets invented without the inventor knowing HOW it works, underlying physics wise. All that's necessary is to notice THAT it works, work out some details of "if you do this much of this you get that much of that", and engineer a practical gadget.
As they say, most fundamental discoveries don't go "Eureka!", they go "That's odd
"... whether it is possible for a spacecraft traveling at conventional speeds to achieve effective superluminal speed by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it.
They've been playing at that for a while. It would allegedly work by creating a condition of cosmic expansion behind the craft and its converse in front of it, so the spacecraft is in a bubble where it's running slower than lightspeed (i.e. stopped) but the cosmic expansion and contraction regions behind and ahead of it each total to the opposite sides retreating or advancing faster than light (which is allowable).
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to fall out of this - or anything. Effective superluminal translates to "Sending messaages into the past." and "Violating causality." if you pick your reference frames correctly. So I expect flies to appear in this ointment at some point: Like something broken about what happens at the sides, needing big-bang energy levels (and not being able to transfer them between the front and back so they're free), or not being able to set up the condition in front because the agency making it happen must involve actual superluminal signal propagation.
Nevertheless, an "electric motor" that works by pushing against virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (or the total mass of the matter in the universe, or of an inverse-square weighting-by-distance of it so it's mostly the local stuff, or dark matter, or the neutrino background, or whatever), instead of ejected exhaust, is just DANDY! Let's see if they can make it work for real at human-palpable, nontrivial, efficiencies and power levels.
thetvdb.com, themoviedb.com, kat.ph, and eztv.ch pretty much got you covered.
When the rubber meets the road, people like Rand Paul are not actually in favor of downsizing the government. They just want to eliminate restrictions on business and aid to the poor.
You have the liberty movement confused with their arch enimies the neocons.
A) The rules are already there and need no new legislation. They just need willpower in the agencies involved.
B) Though not as idealistic as his father, Rand has substantial libertarian leanings - and is a major figure in the Liberty Movement. As such his main goals are to downsize the government and free the people
Downsizing the government means you DON'T add new restrictions to "fix" every new manifestation of a political issue. Doing that keeps the government growing. Instead you:
1) Oppose ANY INCREASE in the government's power and limitations on what people can do.
2) Look for ways to "solve" problems by REMOVING government power and meddling where possible, or just use the EXISTING powers in the ways they were intended when a "solve by downsizing" isn't feasible.
In theory, the FCC shouldn't need to regulate the internet at all, but because other government has created a wholly fucked up system, I agree that it's necessary at this point for them to step in.
If any branch of government should step into this, it's the FTC and the Justice Department, not the FCC.
Network Neutrality conflates two issues: Traffic management and anticompetitive behavior. Some packets SHOULD be treated differently than others, in order to make diverse services "play well together". (Example: Streaming vs. File Download.)
The problem arises when an ISP uses the tools to penalize the competition to its own company's and partners' services, extort extra fees, and otherwise engage in non-technical nastiness through technical means.
The proper regulatory regimes are antitrust and consumer fraud. These are the province of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC.
The FCC is using this as a power-grab on the Internet, in direct contravention of Congress' authorization. THAT is what Rand Paul is opposing.
Our lawyer told us we needed to show that there were no qualified US Citizens available to do the job.
We were doing our hiring via usenet (this was a while ago
In our case it didn't matter; these requirements were just facts. But I'm curious why Disney doesn't seem bound by those same rules.
Have the rules changed?
Was our lawyer incorrect--Is H1-B meant to displace qualified US workers with cheaper foreign workers?