Comment Re:What's a "default messaging app"? (Score 2) 59
What's a "default browser"? Do they mean weblinks shouuld go to browser XYZ? Why would anyone want anything other than Internet Explorer?
What's a "default browser"? Do they mean weblinks shouuld go to browser XYZ? Why would anyone want anything other than Internet Explorer?
The prices look to good to be true though. The 1TB 980 PRO would be cheaper than the 1TB 970 PRO is right now.
The 980 PROs are TLC while the 970 PROs were MLC, thus the price difference. Going from a 970 PRO to a 980 PRO you'd gain performance but lose endurance.
Microsoft is reading the emails of companies that use Microsoft's email hygiene services.
Really? So why do conservatives fly off the handle when presented with evidence that it doesn't help with COVID (see many of the comments here)?
Ok, need to get some things clear. Sars-cov-2 is the virus that we're talking about. That can be helped with Chloroquine. Covid-19 is the disease that sars-cov-2 causes. That's a different problem. Chloroquine may help, may not. Probably helps stop more damage.
Actual evidence to support these claims? I'm not putting a random chemical into my body without actual, strong evidence of benefit with little risk of bad side-effects.
LOL, Let's see, the one that was just discredited or one of the others that's been discredited? They didn't even stand up to the first round of scientific scrutiny.
Many commentors here didn't wait for the scrutiny to dismiss it, just instantly yelled "FAKE NEWS!!!" without any reason other than that it didn't fit their pre-conceived notions.
OTOH We have anecdotal evidence from doctors throughout the world that Chlorquine works as long as you take it soon after infection.
Therein lies the problem, "anecdotal evidence"... most people want actual, hard evidence a drug is safe and effective before using it. It's bad enough that drugs go through trials and get approved only to be later discovered to be harmful and are recalled only after people are harmed. Now you want to skip the testing entirely and just give people random drugs base entirely on purely anecdotal evidence?
Think of it as more like Rabies. If you take the rabies shots before you show symptoms you're fine. If you show symptoms no matter how much of the rabies shots they give you, you will die - soon.
Rabies shots have decades of evidence that they are 80-90% effective. You can't claim anything near the same about chrlorquine wrt Sars-cov-2 or COVID-19.
It's always fatal. Sars-cov-2 isn't that bad. If you get it you could die. You may not even notice it. You could be somewhere in between those two.
All the more reason not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Do the trials and studies before just giving to anybody and everybody (and taking it away from people with lupis or rheumtoid arthritis who actually need it).
I know a man that had it and he said it was way worse than any other flu he's had in his life and he's 55. This last weekend he was out chopping cord wood for this winter.
Glad to hear he recovered.
Could be they're flying off then handle because they know we're being lied to. To me it's obvious they don't want anything else to work. Only their patented drugs. Science has become corrupt and that's well documented over the years here on
I totally agree that "bad science" is a major problem, but it shouldn't stop good scientific research from being performed, nor should it lead to a total rejection of all science. If only wanting patented, expensive drugs to work is the reason, why hasn't there been a similar response to famotidine's potential as a treatment for COVID-19?
Hope this helps some.
Thank you... I truly appreciate insult-free, reasoned discussion.
So why aren't people going crazy over famotidine (the active ingredient in Pepcid-AC)? It's even cheaper and the very early results of studies have been far more positive than those of hydroxychlorquine. Nobody is politicizing famotidine, no politicians are declaring it a "game changer", and nobody is dismissing or praising it out of hand for political reasons.
Leftists politicized it, not conservatives.
Really? So why do conservatives fly off the handle when presented with evidence that it doesn't help with COVID (see many of the comments here)?
And conservatives have politicized the drug from the minute the president mentioned it. My question is why? For that matter, why is Trump so heavily invested in it? Has US political discourse degraded so far that drug testing is now political? Why did my honest question incite you to refer to liberals as "sick fucks"? I happen to be left-leaning but I have no horse in this race, if the drug helps, great, if it doesn't then move onto finding something else that does.
Why are so many people so heavily invested in this one drug helping or not helping with COVID? You have people on one side (Trump included) that insist it helps and will reject any evidence to the contrary. You have people on the other side that insist it doesn't help and will reject any evidence to the contrary. What's the magic with this one particular drug that makes people pick one side or the other without any regard to actual study and data? If this were how all drugs were developed and tested we be fucked.
Why does Miles Prower need secure boot support?
Even if this module does not spy on you and phone home with that data, a future version of it will. Once it has been widely adopted and many people are dependent upon it, that is when a tiny bit of telemetry will be added, and the spying will just grow from there over time.
I guess you missed the whole section of TFA titled "Not Intended for the General Linux Userbase."
That is, ASSUMING you want a paper trail that is easily auditable/recountable. From where I sit, that seems to be the very last thing on Earth that the Democratic Party wants.
I don't know where you are sitting, but all but one of the 13 states that do not require a paper trail are red states.
Are the authors of these studies stupid or what? Women are less likely to put on seatbelts because they compress or otherwise emphasize their breasts making them targets of jokes. If you don't believe me just ask around.
No, the authors are not stupid. From TFA (emphasis mine):
But controlling for the car’s model year, and the passenger or driver’s age, height, weight, BMI, and proximity to the steering wheel, females continue to be in more vulnerable positions when involved in frontal impact collisions—even when they wear a seatbelt.
My guess is that on older equipment, though, the actual comm circuitry might literally have been electrically synced with RX/TX lights.
That was often the case.
It can't access PDF files in the media directory without access to the media directory.
Actually you can't get the full gameplay experience without paying money.
If you don't buy a skin, then your player's appearance randomly changes between matches.
If you don't pay money, then you stop getting rewards once you reach level 62 in a season, you also get FAR fewer rewards over that time - if you pay money, you get at least 1 reward every single level up to 62 and then beyond to 100. If you don't pay money, you get a reward every 2-3 levels up to 62 and then nothing afterwards.
There are challenges that you need to complete any 4 of in order to earn extra experience to level up. You can only complete 3 if you don't pay money.
None of the things you mention affects "gameplay experience" at all. You're talking about purely cosmetic skins/items, leveling up to unlock purely cosmetic items, and challenges to level up quicker to unlock purely cosmetic items. The game plays exactly the same whether you've spent $0, $20, or $500 on skins and/or battle passes.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
