They loose by default. I hope they dont have assets to seize in the EU.
They loose by default. I hope they dont have assets to seize in the EU.
Client calls come into a pbx, ring the cell and desk phone etc etc etc. Mind you my desk phone is an android tablet with poe and a real handset/speaker phone so things like contacts just work and bluetooth.
Second get a phone thats does not suck, working with a nexus 5x and better battery life fast charging for that every 36 hours or so. I do miss my qi charging still.
Praytell, when is the last time Apple admitted a security flaw? January 2016 http://lists.apple.com/archive...
Windows is plagued by bad design decisions. Such as? Taking granted that Windows foundation was based on running on a 16bit PC.
Open source flaws usually tend to be dealt with fairly rapidly once discovered. However what is the fallout for a quick patch update?
I think you're going a little overboard calling people zealots there Chuck. Zealots are not just fans of open source, but ignore the problems that do exist and point to the problems in others select cases to make your point.
There are a set of Large Open source project, but a lot of small ones where there is a few people who care about the source.
You mean text not some guys talking head youtube vlog crap? It's very simple unless you're mentally deficient or entirely unfamiliar you read far faster than somebody talks. Sure a good visual is great for some subject matter and voiceovers to a video cane be useful but 99% (made up on the spot) it's just an excuse to be cool or avoid actualy formating your thoughts into the written word.
Why would the distribution license affect quality and security of the software?
Might have something to do with those countries putting tariffs in place against are good in retaliation. All tariffs do is isolate economies and give the government piles of money.
Somehow you want to make laws to keep industry local? So you want to be Cuba or North Korea?
Because if cheating is done right, it is hard to proove. Most competitions allow a degree of "Failure" in the game. So if you are running a race, while you are not suppose to come in contact with the person you are racing with. However most judges will not be hardass enough to discredit an accidental hit. However if you are going to cheat, you may "Accidentally" hit your biggest threat just to get him off his stride.
Now this is cheating, however it is hard to prove.
That and sportsmanship lesson one, was to publically not be a sore loser. So saying he cheated is often the call of a sore loser.
Winners tend to win because they take more chances. Playing it safe, means you are going to be in the middle of the pack. But if you take your chances you can win big or lose big, People who have this attitude can see cheating as taking one of those risks.
It is true, but you are expecting a rational train of thought from a person. Being that their self identity is being challenged, they will have more of an instinctual instinct then a well planned thought and consequence.
Besides if you can rationalize it away such as everyone else is doing it ("they cheating too") so by cheating they are keeping the environment equal.
But even in less game method, when our self identity is threatened we will lash out and fight for it. Say you are a programmer and one of those "Rock Star" Programmers always the one being called when things get tough and you have an answer. Then a new guy comes who knows some newer technology, which can solve your problems that you fix better. How quick will you discredit the technology, pointing out any flaw in the system as the key reason why it is obviously inferior. Vs. the more rational thing, of actually taking time to learn and embrace the technology and adding it to your tool box of tools, that can enhance your ability.
Grammer ignorami. Proper nouns should NEVER be preceded by articles.
Oh, the definite article is very commonly used before proper nouns, most often place names or geographical features (e.g. "The Mississippi (River)").
Sometimes "the" is used purely customarily (particularly in names translated from other languages like "The Ukraine" or "The Maghreb" ), but its primary function is to distinguish between nouns referring to specific things a speaker is expected to be aware of, and generic things that are just being introduced into the discourse: "a ball [which I haven't mentioned up until now] broke Mr. Smith's window; Mr. Smith kept the ball [which I just mentioned]."
In particular proper nouns which sound like they might be generic will sometimes customarily get a "the" tacked on to indicate the audience is expected to picture the well-known thing rather than some unknown one ("The United States", "The Great Lakes", "The Big Easy"). "The Donald" is a definite article usage of this type, with an bit of ironic deprecation mixed in.
By the way the plural of "ignoramus" is "ignoramuses", not "ignorami". That is because "ignoramus" was never a noun in Latin; rather it is a conjugation of the verb ignorare (to be unacquainted with, to ignore). "Ignoramus" entered English as a legal term to mean "we take no notice of" (e.g. a witness whose testimony is irrelevant because he has no firsthand knowledge).
The question is who would they vote of instead now?
If they go towards a more moderate candidate or a crazy nut?
Fox News has done an excellent job at radicalizing the base, making sure Democrats are hated as godless communist who wants to control every aspect of your life.
I would like to know what the Total Carbon footprint is.
How much carbon does it take to make a solar panel, ship it, set it up.
How many trees will need to be knocked down to build the solar farm. Does the energy produced from the solar panel over its expected life actually offset the cost of implementing it, and long term maintenance.
I am not saying it is bad for the envrionment on the whole. But I would like to see the true costs.
Offering a local environment of cleaner Air, and possible cheaper reliable energy, may attract additional people in the area. As well these people may be healthier thus have a better reproduction rate.
While we shouldn't dismiss problems ranging from rape to unprofessional behavior as just being prude.
Academia is very hierarchical in structure, so there is a pecking order in power there. So having men who are in a higher power position hitting on women in lower power positions puts them in a disadvantage. While they can go forward, it will still mark them as being "Miss. Woman's Lib" and isolate them from working up the power command of academia.
No, we're all too focused on "Who's fault is it?" and nobody has properly considered "What do we do about it?"
We know exactly what to do about it: move to less convenient fuels (excuse me, "renewables") , adopt less comfortable living conditions (aka "reduce energy consumption"), reduce the amount of disposable consumer goods in our lives, etc. And those of us in the developed world have to cut enough from our carbon budgets to make allowances for the populations of the developing nations who want to better their standards of living, a move that is guaranteed to build resentment on both sides of the equation.
What you're missing here (either honestly or deliberately) is that the problem is ongoing, and that because it's caused by economic activity, the people who are profiting from it want to continue to profit from it, and they are actively working to derail efforts to correct or even acknowledge the problem.
And those of us in the developed world are not too excited about fixing it. The benefit we get from fossil fueled energy is great and immediate; the impact we feel from CO2 emissions is so low we have to be 40 years old before we have enough experience to notice the impact on our own lives. Rising water levels on a few tropical islands is a long way from stepping on a gas pedal in North Dakota.
So yeah, we need to do both: stop the people who are encouraging the growth of the problem, and we have to accept some sacrifices as a result. Neither is fun, so
"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin