In the Linux community, we really don't care about market share
In the Linux community, we really don't care about market share
From a Mac OS X user's perspective, the next version of Ubuntu should be called "Otiose Ocelot."
Or as Tolstoy would say, "All newbie users are alike; each advanced user is advanced in his own way".
I hope you realize that that means:
newbie = happy
advanced user = unhappy
since the original Tolstoy quote is:
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
After 15 years of "This is the Year of the Linux Desktop" I'm not getting any hopes up.
No, no, no!
It's "we're just a year away from Linux domination of the Desktop...
and we have been for 15 years!"
No blinders, a form that *recently* came out of a computer and was stamped proves nothing.
What proves birth is determined by the laws of that state. By Hawaii law, the state checks the original which is kept on file, and then issues the certified copy, which is what Obama published. I have a birth certificates for my children. They are not the original, but are certified records with the seal of the state attorney general. Guess what - the US State Department had no problem accepting them for purposes of obtaining a passport.
Is he a Kenyan usurper of the U.S. presidency?
No, he was born in Hawaii. Even Michele Bachmann says so. This makes you officially more wacky than Michele Bachmann, and that's saying a lot.
Their app works on a plain vanilla Mac which has ever synced with a plain vanilla iPhone, no jailbreaking required.
It isn't slightly correlated; it's directly causal. Citing the supposed caloric value of gasoline is just doublespeak. No legitimate biologist would consider the heat value of gasoline to be its dietary caloric value.
The dietary caloric value is the heat value of the digestible components of a substance; that's why the caloric value of celery is so low, even though it's total heat value is much higher - i.e., human beings cannot digest cellulose.
The dietary caloric value of the same celery is much higher for ruminants whose symbiotic digestive systems can derive energy from cellulose.
The big picture is this: no doubt overconsumption of sugar can have negative metabolic effects (e.g., elevated triglycerides). But the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, causing the 300 lb. american, is a simple thermodynamic imbalance; contemporary americans eat much more food than they need for their increasingly sedentary lifestyle. We need, as a nation, to eat less and do more.
A high external concentration of sugar causes cells to leak water (this is the osmotic effect referred to) just as a high external concentration of salt does. This is why honey is bacteriostatic/anti-microbial, why salt is used as a preservative, why sugar (again, in high concentrations) is anti-fungal, so it is used to preserve fruit (the resulting combination often going by the name "preserves.")
Yeah, just like the Watergate burglars "solved" Nixon's 1972 re-election problem. Oh, wait...
Hackers get caught. The repercussions are ususally worse than never having done the hack in the first place.
The whole point of TFA is that this may well not be the case. It may well be the case that language is not the product of hard wired wetware, sometimes known as "the Language Instinct," but is rather the product of:
1. general symbolic intelligence, i.e., thought, coupled with:
2. the ability to make more complex sounds, due to a vocal tract modified from anthropoid ape ancestors by the shift of the relative positions of neck and head brought on by bipedalism, and:
3. cultural transmission, i.e., the ability to pass language on to the next generation due to the long childhood dependency of humans which, in turn, came about because our large heads won't fit through the birth canal at full size, so we are all effectively born premature - unable to walk, or even effectively grasp our mother's hair and cling to her.
Therefore, it is quite possible that once our ancestors developed sufficiently large and complex brains to think with more logical sophistication than, for example chimpanzees, we slowly over time dveloped more and more complex languages until we reached a plateau, specifically, the limit of children under the age of 6 or 7 to understand and learn the basic grammar and vocabulary of the language.
Any increased grammatical complexity beyond this point would immediately die out since the next generation could not learn it during childhood. Once this plateau was reached, presumably in southern Africa ca. 200,000 years ago, our ancestors had the cognitive "killer app," i.e., modern human language, that allowed them to successfully radiate across the planet.
Except Google was not caught lying. We have Microsoft claiming that Google lied, nothing more.
I'm a whole generation older than you, so I started watching Tom Baker as the Doctor when I was a teen in the 70s. I have a friend the same age as me who lived in the UK as a child and watched the original series live as a small child. He remembers thinking it was craptastic even as a 5 year old (but he watched it anyway - not a lot of good options back then). I saw the shows from the 60s in my teens in the mid 70s and really couldn't get past the lack of production values. Revisiting them later on in my 30s, I still didn't find them really worth watching.
For me, the best Doctors were Tom Baker, David Tennant, Peter Davison, and Christopher Eccelston. I like Matt Smith, the current doctor as well.
I agree with your overall advice to the OP:
1. If you have have limited time, just start watching from the "reboot" of 2005.
2. If you have more time, start with Tom Baker, then continue on with his successors from the original series as long as your interest holds up.
It probably doesn't matter anyway, because header files aren't eligible for copyright. They are too simple, and have no artistic value. They are simply machine readable definitions of a standard.
Not a settled matter of law. The fact that an individual part is not copyrightable does not determine whether the whole work is copyrightable.
It is perfectly true that an individual function prototype may not be copyrightable, but the whole header file may be, because, taken as a whole, the court could easily determine that it represents an expressive description of how a whole system works.
Individual function prototypes may not be copyrightable, but whole header files may well be copyrightable. In copyright law one cannot generalize from "this bit is not copyrightable" to "the whole work is just a collection of bits, each of which is not copyrightable, so the whole work is not copyrightable."
It is simply not a settled matter of law whether header files are copyrightable, so Google and Android developers may be in a bit of hot water here.
This argument was not held up in court, because it was never made. IBM argued correctly, and the court agreed, that the specfic headers in question were not copyrightable because the were in the public domain. IBM did not argue, nor has any court ruled AFAIK that headers in general are not copyrightable. Hence the potential legal problems for android developers.
Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada