The number of users smart enough to use torrents but not adblockers seems like it would be small.
The telling quote comes under the section titled "Planned Sale of Slashdot Media," wherein the company states the following:
The Company acquired Slashdot Media in 2012 both to provide the Dice business with broader reach into Slashdot's user community base and to extend the Dice business outside North America by engaging with SourceForge's significant international technology user community. The Company, however, has not successfully leveraged the Slashdot user base to further Dice's digital recruitment business; and with the acquisition of The IT Job Board and success of Open Web, the anticipated value to the Company of the SourceForge traffic outside North America has not materialized. The Company now plans to divest the business, as it does not fit within the Company's strategic initiatives and believes the Slashdot Media business will have the opportunity to improve its financial performance under different ownership.
Link to Original Source
Family Guy and Firefly were more or less sabotaged by politics. The reason Family Guy came back was Fox executives looked at the sales numbers of the DVDs and basically said "WHO THE FUCK CANCELED THIS?"
Now Family Guy has the opposite problem. Everyone knows the show has run its course (Seth especially), but new episodes keep coming out.
The CGI in that movie is actually better than what some big budget movies manage...
Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them.
As I love to point out, the problem with this definition is that it also applies to the Sun-Jupiter system.
This is caused by the default "swappiness" value of 60. Try setting it to 1 or running without a swap partition if you have enough RAM.
The default of 60 sacrifices UI responsiveness for program performance and having it continue to be the default setting even on every distro that is specifically aimed at desktop use is a bit baffling.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. With 16:10 screens, 1920x1200 was a standard resolution. The pixel dimensions for a 16:9 screen of comparable size and resolution are only 1920x1080, which is fewer pixels vertically, not more pixels horizontally.
That 16:10 screens had more pixels than "related" 16:9 screens was an arbitrary decision most likely made for ease of production. Now that that the roles are reversed, with 16:9 being the standard and 16:10 the outlier, it is just as likely that horizontal resolution on a 16:9 model would would be decreased to make a 16:10 screen. Apple has done exactly that with one of their newest models.
A user who wants a particular size of laptop, and who is switching from 16:10 to 16:9, would have to take a model with a shorter screen, not a wider one. Otherwise, they end up with a wider, less portable laptop.
Laptop depth is just as important as width to portability, so there is no advantage to 16:10 here, just selective thinking on your part.
Also, Ford... ford should release an updated technologically but stylistically as close as they can to identical, 2016 (1964 1/2) Mustang! That'd be sweet!
That is exactly what they have been doing since 2005. You never noticed?
Windows has that problem all the time when UAC gets involved in my experience. The prompt can be quite slow to appear depending on current disk I/O.
some I/O heavy operations took 7 times longer because it wanted to hash every file.
This always throws me when using newer Windows. The computer appears to hang, eventually a UAC prompt appears, and only then does the file copy actually begin.
Seems glitchy, yet this is the expected behaviour!
Another pet peeve is that Windows aligns non-resolution independant program text to the subpixel grid before scaling it on a high DPI screen. The result is a blurry mess.
Years of research went into finding the most comfortable aspect ratio for TV viewing, which turned out to be 4:3. The same applies to computer monitors.
This is false. Monitors used 4:3 because TVs used 4:3. TVs used 4:3 because films used 4:3. Films used 4:3 because that's what was chosen as an interoperability standard in 1932.
It was an arbitrary decision.
4:3 fetishism is passe now that screen resolutions have surpassed your beloved 1600x1200 tube. Get over it.
Very few regions refer to it as a megagram, even though that is the official designation.
And why is that, exactly? Why adopt a term with a different meaning from another system of measurement into a system that is supposed to be all about simplicity and ease of unit conversions?
"Metric ton" is an oxymoron of the first rate.
That's actually your third post, you dirty liar.
It's a bit shocking to see a pile of 6-digit UID users who didn't instantly recognize the OP as a riff on a famous troll post. Really?
Perhaps you should all brush up on your gorilla warfare training.