It was my Uncle and a Dell Inspiron desktop and nothing was working right since he had no idea how to maintain the computer. But he did know how to use Firefox and get his email.
I fixed his computer as a Christmas gift. It runs Windows 7 now and he knows how to use IE and get his email.
I also turned on auto update, cranked UAC to maximum and set it to require a password, 3 years, no support calls.
I once saw Linux on some average users desktop. Total non-techie, and there he was using Ubuntu.
Ok Attorneys: Could this qualify for a class action suit to shut them down forever and burn them to the ground?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No. And you need to actually read how it was done before commenting.
Well, yeah, the federal government can't go bankrupt, it can just print more money and tax more. What it can do, however, is wreck the economy, and that's what it has been busy doing for a decade.
So, what you're basically saying is that you do not understand macroeconomics.
Ok, that was absolutely brilliant.
Back in the 1960's this was brought up with wastewater wells.
Geologists are not sure if the small quakes prevented a larger one, or lead up to a larger one.
On a somewhat related note, if you want to see why wastewater wells near fault lines are bad, ask Oklahoma with 300+ earthquakes in just a few years.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/
While the US Navy's more recent safety record appears much better, one can say the same of most civilian nuclear reactors as well.
Ask the people who have tritium in their water supply about our civilian nuclear reactors.
http://www.ap.org/company/awards/part-ii-aging-nukes
The most recent being this year.
The USSR had their share of flaws, some of which don't apply to the US.
I have a better solution. Outlaw nuclear power plant operators and let someone competent like the Navy create a non-profit to run the plants.
No, I don't. So stop letting them run them.
I'm not anti-nuke, I'm anti-greed.
I have no (ZERO, None, nada, zilch) issues with nuclear energy as long as it's done properly.
I have major issues with letting companies like ConEd run anything dangerous. They will cut corners to make more money, they will leak radioactive waste into the groundwater, they will eventually cause a disaster. It's in their nature. They need to earn a never ending growing profit, the quick way to that is to cut corners.
So, YES, we must invest in nuclear, but must do it properly.
Nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest pollution, best carbon footprint of anything we have (it's largest footprint comes from the concrete used in it's construction) and could be far cheaper if it wasn't severely over-regulated.
Pure bullshit. Those regulations are there to stop the local energy company from cutting corners and blowing up something. Something that they do on a regular basis in non nuclear energy.
The most dangerous aspect of nuclear energy is the energy company.
Faster? Cite a reference maybe?
He's talking about the Pro. Which has a Core I5 w/ Intel HD 4000.
In simple terms, it's faster. If you want to get detailed, it's much faster.
No, being successful got him that. Success does not require abusive behavior.
Jobs, Gates, Ballmer, Torvalds and the rest are assholes.
Acting like an asshole is all fine and dandy for them until one day they drop dead and people remember the rich, successful, yet still dead asshole.
Many people think like the ends justify the means, they don't. There's no rule that says you have to manage like a raving lunatic to be successful.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
