No it should work great, like windows 7 on a netbook.
2939 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
how many times it had paid for an exorcist, psychic or religious healer...
If I had reason to believe they were wasting money on that type of crap it would not be a strange question, just one they would not want to answer.
"many requests were also for information that was freely available on council websites"
On an unlinked page, with black text on black, locked with a password of BewareOfTheLeppard
"The seven Cook & Co staffers worked at the Apple Store in Fort Lauderdale, and are accused of working with phone thieves to exchange 600 stolen mobes for legitimate handsets. Police estimate the alleged scam netted the gang's leaders more than US$500,000."
So 500,000 for 600 phones... or $833 each?
Or is this the "for every one we found we guess there are 20 more" type math?
I got the key, but when I tried it I get the error "Unsuccessful loading key: RSA key format is not supported".
When I check their blog I find comments to the blog post say the tool returns an error: "Unsuccessful loading key: RSA key format is not supported" and a reply says that someone will be reaching out about the error shortly.
If that's how Lastpass works why are people saying it's down? Unless it's responding with garbage that prevents it from using the local copy. There should only be a handful of people who changed the password on one device and then tried to use it on another device.
"Why do you think it would not be able to join a domain?"
Because it's the cheap/home/basic version of windows so no joining a domain, and no global policy, it's been like that since XP. You need Pro or better to join a domain.
I expect they will let you upgrade to the pro version for a pile of cash, but that defeats the purpose.
It needs more study but it appears that cat videos may be an automatic response to excessive bullshit posted to the net. along with Gartner it appears that Fox News, and most CEO speeches to share holders are linked to the problem.
In order to return the proper cat video balance to the web we need to work to reduce the amount of bullshit posted every day.
"Early versions of Lurk spread through an HTML iFrame on compromised websites that relied on a Flash-based exploit (CVE-2013-5330) in order to infect the computers of passing surfers."
How do current versions install? The stenography stuff is just for updates and commands after it's already installed.
The local cable monopoly Rogers uses crappy* cisco routers that provide both a secure(ish) and a wide open guest network that requires you to open a browser and enter a password to get any place. Of course that makes your traffic open to sniffing too.
*The two people I know that have them have to reboot them a few times a week.
So, under this particular law, the ape owns the copyright.
Unless Slater paid the ape (in Bananas?) to commission the photos.
Can a monkey own something? If no is there something in the law that gives the camera owner second dibs over the general public. If yes who is the monkey's agent?
So if I take your photos, and transfer the images to a computer, select the best ones, crop them appropriately choosing suitable proportions to frame the image, did any post-work on the photo to make it look its best, and then submitted it online to the world itself. Then they are mine now?
Sorry don't think so.
I remember a chimp on a national geographic special that used a polaroid camera to take photos. The chimp picked the subject, aimed the camera, and took the photo, then waited for it to develop. No different then teaching a child to take a photo.
Not the same as an automatic wildlife camera at all.
So clearly the copyright belongs to the ape.
Unless the law states that copyright can only be held by humans. Or the ape is property and like a slave all the apes property is the owners property.
I don't see anyway the copyright can belong to the owner of the camera.
"Beyond that, abstract consideration, however, our economic interest does not have a practical or direct impact.”"
This request came from a hotmail address. Reject.
This request came from a lawyer... might cost us money. Approved
This request came from a lawyer for a guy we don't like. Approved, make sure the press find out.
This request came from some ass that thinks their important. Approved, massively overblock.
I disagree. As long as it's clear and predictable it's ok. At least if you have a choice. My cell provider gives me just what you call plain wrong.
I get 5 GB data, if I go over I might be throttled. But I will not have to pay extra.
The big three in Canada are still back in the days of small cap, stupid per MB charge if you go over.
What is plain wrong is saying they will throttle you based on unknown criteria so that they might as well say "if we feel like it".
There is no defence. It's just do you have picture? Yes, guilty. Of course if your important they can decide that it's not in the public interest to proceed with charges.
I expect they were told that if they didn't plead guilty they were going to jail.
I expect they were doing something the cops didn't like, maybe taking part in a protest, or worse taking photos of cops breaking up a protest. Now they have nice two year conditional discharge so they better not do anything else important people don't like for the next while. It would be interesting to know what the unrelated matters were.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019