For a company like Greyhound those would be considered fixed assets and would be depreciated according to a depreciation schedule.
FYI if the assets aren't in service they wouldn't be depreciated. Only once they are put in service is depreciation started.
Because the licensing agreement that you didn't bother to read said they can remotely update the software on your device at any time and without notice to you.
If it bothers you invest in a Nexus or another device with an unlockable bootloader and install the open source ROM of your choice. If you wish, you can even fly without the Google Play framework, using F-Droid and/or sideloading your own APKs. It's entirely possible to have a completely open source Android device if you so desire.
The 4.6 kernel series is already end of life, 4.7 is only marked stable, and 4.8 hasn't yet been released.. Currently Linux Kernel 4.4 is the latest longterm Linux kernel and is projected to be supported until Feb. 2018. With the exception of kernel 3.2, support will end for the other Linux longterm kernels either this year or next year.
If you are creating a long term support release of a Linux distro, it makes sense to choose a longterm support kernel over either an EOL kernel release or an unreleased kernel (which likely bring its own set of issues). If the distro did choose to kernel without long term support, they would be on the hook for back porting critical patches into the kernel. Since they did choose a long term kernel release, they can focus on what sets Mint apart, maintaining their Cinnamon interface, rather than maintaining a custom kernel release.
Instead of shaving off every last mm, just give us a bigger battery.
You're arguing function over form; a winning argument on Slashdot but probably a losing argument in the real world, where "sexy" beats "usable" nine out of ten times.
You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....
I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement
You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.
Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.
but I actually count her gender in her favor
Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.
Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.
Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.
We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*
How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.
You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.
Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*
You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.
China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.
(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)
Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.
Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion.
If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.
I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.
We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.
In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.
If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein